J J- 



gtfrvarg of §$npt#$. 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. 






7 



> . s . 



.'• . . 4 \ » V\ 



/fS^ ? -^ A&>^ S^cfa^C^ 



THE 



SCRIPTURAL ARGUMENT 



EPISCOPACY EXAMINED: 



First published in the Quarterly Christian 
Spectator tor March. 1834, and March, 1835. 







NEW-YORK : 
PUBLISHED BY LEAVITT, LORD & CO. 

192 Broadway. 

BOSTON:— CROCKER & BREWSTER, 

47 Washington-street. 

1835. 



.85 



Entered according to the act of Congress, in the year 
1835, by Leavitt, Lord & Co., in the Clerk's Office of the 
District Court of the Southern District of New-York. 



ADVERTISEMENT. 



The following little work was first pub- 
lished in two articles in the Quarterly Chris- 
tian Spectator, They were originally written, 
and are now re-published, from no desire of 
controversy. The only purpose in issuing the 
articles in this form is, to furnish those who 
believe in the equality of Christian ministers 
with a brief view of the arguments on which 
the parity of the clergy is defended ; and to 
show from the New Testament that the claims 
of Episcopalians are without a scriptural 

foundation. 

A. Barnes. 

Philadelphia, 1835. 



West & Trow, Printers. 



EXAMINATION 

OP 

" EPISCOPACY TESTED BY SCRIPTURE ;" 

A tract by the Right Rev. H. U. Onderdonk, D.D., Assistant 
Bishop of the Diocese of Pennsylvania. 



The history of this tract is this. It was first 
published as an essay, in the " Protestant Episco- 
palian," for November and December, 1830. It 
was then issued in a pamphlet form, without the 
name of the author. It was next requested for pub- 
lication by the " Trustees of the New- York Pro- 
testant Episcopal Press;" and after being amended 
by the author, with an addition of several notes, it 
was printed in the form of a tract, and as such has 
had an extensive circulation. 

The tract is one which has strong claims on the 
attention of those who are not Episcopalians. The 
name and standing of the author will give it exten- 
sive publicity. The fact that it comes from the 
" Press " of the Episcopal church, in this country ; 
that it is issued as one of their standing publications, 
and that it will, therefore, be circulated with all the 
1* 



6 EPISCOPACY EXAMINED. 

zeal which usually characterizes associations organ- 
ized for defending the exclusive views of any reli- 
gious body ; and most of all, the character of the 
tract itself, and the ground assumed by it, give it a 
title to our attention, which can be claimed by hardly 
any single tract of the kind ever published in our 
country. Our views of it may be expressed in one 
word. It is the best written, the most manly, ela- 
borate, judicious, and candid discussion, in the form 
of a tract, which we have seen on this subject. Our 
Episcopalian friends regard it as unanswerable. 
They have provided amply for its circulation, and 
rely on its making converts wherever it is perused ; 
and in a tone which cannot be misunderstood, they 
are exulting in the fact, that to this day it has been 
left entirely unnoticed by the opponents of prelacy.* 
And we wonder, too, that it has not been noticed. 
There are men among us who seem to consider the 
external defence of the church as intrusted to their 
peculiar care ; who delight to be seen with the ac- 
coutrements of the ecclesiastical military order, pa- 
trolling the walls of Zion ; who parade with much 
self-complacency, as sentinels in front of the temple 
of God ; who are quick to detect the movements 
of external enemies ; and who are admirably adapt- 
ed to this sp: .rfare. They seem to have 
little heart for the interior operations of the church, 

* :: Has the tract { Episcopacy tested by Scripture,' been 

answered ? This, we believe, is neither the first time of ask- 

. j ad, nor the third. 5 ''— Protestant Episcopalian. 



EPISCOPACY EXAMINED. 7 

and seldom notice them, except to suggest doubts 
of the expediency of some new measure proposed, 
or to promote discord, and strife, by laying down 
rules for the conduct of those who are laboring in 
the direct work of saving souls. Much do we mar- 
vel that these men have suffered this tract to lie so 
long unnoticed. 

We have never regarded the Episcopal contro. 
versy with any very special interest. Our feelings 
lead us to dwell on subjects more directly connected 
with the salvation of the soul. We have no taste 
for the species of warfare which is often waged in 
guarding the outposts of religion. Christianity, we 
have supposed, is designed to act directly on the 
hearts of men ; and we regard it as a matter of very 
little moment, in what particular church the spirit 
is prepared for its eternal rest, provided the great 
object be accomplished, of bringing it fairly under 
the influence of the gospel. 

But we propose, for the reasons already sug- 
gested, to examine the arguments of this tract. We 
do it with the highest respect for the author ; with a 
full conviction that he has done ample justice to his 
cause ; that he has urged on his side of the question, 
all that can be advanced ; and we enter on the task 
with sincere pleasure, at meeting an argument con- 
ducted with entire candor, without misrepresentation, 
and with a manifest love of truth. Our wish is to 
reciprocate this candor ; and our highest desire is to 
imitate the chastened spirit, the sober argumenta- 






8 EPISCOPACY EXAMINED. 

tion, and the Christian temper evinced in this tract. 
It is firm in its principles, but not illiberal ; decided 
in its views, but not censorious ; settled in its aims, 
but not resorting to sophism, or ridicule, to carry its 
points. There is, evidently, in the author's mind, 
too clear a conviction of the truth of what he ad- 
vances, to justify a resort to the mere art of the 
logician ; too manifest a love of the cause in which 
he is engaged, to expose himself to the retort which 
might arise from lofty declamation, or the expres- 
sion of angry passions towards his opponents. 

One object which we have in view, in noticing 
this tract, is to express our gratification, that the 
controversy is at last put where it should have been 
at first, on an appeal to the Bible alone. Never 
have we been more disgusted, than at the mode in 
which the Episcopal. controversy has usually been 
conducted. By common consent, almost, the wri- 
ters on both sides have turned from the New Tes- 
tament, where the controversy might have been 
brought to a speedy issue, to listen to the decisions 
of the fathers ; and, as might have been expected, 
have 

" Found no end, in wandering mazes lost." 

It was the policy of the friends of prelacy to do so ; 
and it was the folly of their opponents to suffer them 
to choose the field of debate, and to weary them- 
selves in an effort to Hx the meaning, to secure the 
consistency, and obtain the suffrages of the fathers. 
Full well was it known, we believe, by the friends 



EPISCOPACY EXAMINED. 9 

of Episcopacy in other times, that the New Testa- 
ment could furnish a most slender support for their 
claims. In the times of the papacy, it had always 
been defended by an appeal to the fathers. The 
system had risen, sustained, not even "professedly, by 
the authority of the Bible, but by the traditions 
of the elders. The ranks and orders of the papal 
priesthood could be defended only by the authority 
of a church which claimed infallibility, and which 
might dispense, therefore, with the New Testament. 
The Reformers came forth from the bosom of the 
papacy with much of this feeling. They approach- 
ed this subject with high reverence for the opinions 
of past times ; with a deference for the fathers, nour- 
ished by all the forms of their education, by all 
existing institutions, and by the reluctance of the 
human mind to break away from the established 
customs of ages. On the one hand, the advocates 
of Episcopacy found their proofs in the common law 
of the church, the institutions which had existed 
" time whereof the memory of man runneth not to 
the contrary ;" and on the other hand, the opponents 
of prelacy were equally anxious to show, that they 
had not departed from the customs of the fathers, 
and that the defence of their institutions might be 
found in times far remote, and in records which re- 
ceived the veneration, and commanded the confi- 
dence of the Christian world. Into this abyss both 
parties plunged. In this immense chaos of opinions 
and interpretations, into these moving, disorganized, 



10 EPISCOPACY EXAMINED. 

jostling elements, where, as in the first chaos, light 
struggled with darkness, and confusion reigned, they 
threw themselves, to endeavor severally to find the 
support of their opinions. "Whatsoever time, or 
the heedless hand of blind chance," says Milton, 
" hath drawn down from of old to this present, in 
her huge drag-net, whether fish or sea-weed, shells 
or shrubs, unpicked, unchosen, those are the fathers." 
With those who, according to Mosheim,* deemed it 
not only lawful, but commendable, to deceive and 
lie for the sake of truth and piety, it would be sin- 
gular if any point could be settled that involved con- 
troversy. With men who held to every strange 
and ridiculous opinion ; to every vagary that the 
human mind can conceive ;f it would be strange 
if both sides in this controversy did not find enough 
that had the appearance of demonstration, to perplex 
and embarrass an opponent ad libitum. In examin- 
ing this controversy, as it was conducted in former 
times, we have been often amused, and edified, at 
the perfect complacency with which a passage from 
one of the fathers is adduced in defence of either 
side of the question, and the perfect ease with which, 
by a new translation, or by introducing a few words 
of the context, or more frequently by an appeal to* 
some other part of the same author, not studious 
himself of consistency, and probably having no set- 
tled principles, the passage is shown to mean just 

* Murdock's Mosheim, vol. i., p. 159. 

t See Tillemont's Ecclesiastical History, passim. 



E2ISC0PACV EXAMINED. J \ 

the contrary ; and then again a new version, or yet 
another quotation, shall give it a new aspect, and 
restore it to its former honors.* Thus the fathers 
became a mere foot-ball between the contending 
parties ; and thus in this controversy the weary 
searcher for truth finds no solid ground* Eminently 
here " he which is first in his cause seemeth just ; 
but his neighbor cometh and searcheth him." Prov, 
xviii. 17. To this wearisome and unsatisfactory 
toil he is doomed, who will read all the older con- 
troversies on Episcopacy* There he, 

" O'er bog, or steep, through strait, rough, dense or rare, 
With head, hands, wings or feet, pursues his way, 
And swims, or sinks, or wades, or creeps or flies/' 

Were we to adduce the most striking instance 
of the plastic nature of this kind of proof, we should 
refer to the epistles of Ignatius. To our eyes they 
seem to be a plain, straight-forward account of the 
existence of Presbyterianism in his time. They are 
substantially such a description as a man would 
give, writing in the inflated and exaggerated man- 
ner in which the orientals wrote, of Presbyterianism 
as it exists in the United States. Yet it is well 
known, that with the utmost pertinacity those letters 
have been adduced as proving the doctrine of Epis- 
copacy. And so confident have been the assertions 
on the subject, that not a few non-Episcopalians 
have given them up as unmanageable, and have 

* See the Letters of Dr. Miller, and Dr. Bowden, on Epis- 
copacy, passim* 



12 EPISCOPACY EXAMINED. 

stoutly contended, what may be very true, that no 
inconsiderable part of them are forgeries. 

Any man can see what a hopeless task is before 
him, if he endeavors to settle this controversy by 
the authority of the fathers. The waste of time, 
and talent, and learning, on this subject, is fitted 
deeply to humble the heart. And even yet the pas- 
sion has not ceased. Even now, men high in office 
and in rank, leave the New Testament and appeal 
to the fathers. Episcopacy is discarded, not prin- 
cipally because the New Testament is a stranger to 
it, but because Jerome was not a prelatist ; it is re- 
jected, not because it cannot be made out from the 
Bible, but because it is a matter of debate, whether 
the fathers teach it or not. 

From this unprofitable and endless litigation, we 
are glad to turn to the true merits of the case. We 
rejoice sincerely that one man can be found who is 
willing to bring to this subject the great principle 
of the Protestant reformation, that all religious opin- 
ions are to be tested by the Scriptures. And we 
especially rejoice to see this principle so decisively 
advanced, by a man of the talents and official rank 
of Dr. Onderdonk ; and that it is so prominently 
avowed by sending forth from the " Protestant Epis- 
copal Press," a tract defending this principle. It 
indicates a healthy state of things in the Episcopal 
church in this country. It will save endless disputes 
about words, and much useless toil in endeavoring 
to give consistency and sense to the fathers. This 



EPISCOPACY EXAMINES. 13 

mode of reasoning, too, will soon decide the contro- 
versy. Long have we wished to see this matter 
brought to so obvious and so just an issue ; and long 
have we expected that when this should be the case, 
the matter would be soon decided. Hereafter let it 
be held up as a great principle, from which, neither 
in spirit nor in form, we are ever to depart, that 
if the peculiar doctrines of Episcopacy are not found 
in the Scriptures, they are to be honestly abandon- 
ed; or held, as Cranmer held them, as matters 
of mere expediency. Let this truth go forth, never 
to be recalled ; and let every man who attempts to 
defend the claims of bishops, appeal to the Bible 
alone. On this appeal, with confidence, we rest the 
issue of this case. 

The great principle en which the argument in 
this tract is conducted, is indicated in its title ; it is 
farther stated at length in the tract itself. Thus, in 
the opening sentence, " The claim of Episcopacy to 
be of divine institution, and therefore obligatory on 
the church, rests fundamentally on the one question 
— Has it the authority of Scripture ? If it has not, 
it is not necessarily binding." Again, on the same 
page, " No argument is worth taking into the ac- 
count, that has not a palpable bearing on the clear 
and naked topic — the scriptural evidence of Episco- 
pacy." Having stated this principle, the writer 
proceeds to remark, that " the argument is obstruct- 
ed with many extraneous and irrelevant difficulties, 
which, instead of aiding the mind in reaching the 
2 



14 EPISCOPACY EXAMINED. 

truth on that great subject, tend only to divert it and 
occupy it with questions not affecting the main is- 
sue.'' The first object of the " essay " is then sta- 
ted to be, " to point out some of these extraneous 
questions and difficulties, and expose either their 
fallacy or their irrelevancy." u The next object 
will be, to state the scriptural argument." 

In pursuing this plan, the writer introduces and 
discusses, as one of these extraneous difficulties, the 
objection that Episcopacy is inimical to a free gov- 
ernment. He next notices, as " another of these 
extraneous considerations, the comparative standing 
in piety, as evinced by the usual tokens of moral 
and spiritual character, of the members respectively 
of the Episcopal and non-Episcopal churches." A 
third " suggestion " noticed, is, " that the external 
arrangements of religion are but of inferior import- 
ance, and that therefore all scruple concerning the 
subject before us may be dispensed with." p. 5. A 
fourth " apparently formidable, yet extraneous diffi- 
culty, often raised, is, that Episcopal claims unchurch 
all non-Episcopal denominations." p. 6. This con- 
sequence, the author of the tract says is not by him 
allowed. " But granting it to the fullest extent," it is 
asked, " what bearing has it on the truth of the single 
proposition that Episcopacy is of divine ordinance ?" 
A fifth among these extraneous points, is " the prac- 
tice of adducing the authority of individuals, who f 
although eminent in learning and piety, seem at least 
to have contradicted themselves or these public 



EPISCOPACY EXAMINED* 15 

standards on the subject of Episcopacy." p. 7. The 
last objection noticed, as not affecting the ultimate 
decision of the controversy, is, " that though the ex- 
amples recorded in Scripture should be allowed to 
favor Episcopacy, still that regimen is not there ex- 
plicitly commanded." p. 9. 

To most of the observations under these several 
heads, we give our hearty assent. And it will be 
perceived, that the controversy is thus reduced to 
very narrow limits ; and that, if these principles are 
correct, numberless tomes which have been written 
on both sides of the question are totally useless. 
We are glad that all this extraneous matter is struck 
off, and should rejoice if every consideration of this 
kind were hereafter to be laid out of view. 

In discussing the second topic proposed, i6 the 
scriptural evidence relating to this controversy," (p. 
11) the first object of Dr. Onderdonk is to state the 
precise point in debate. It is then observed, that 
" parity declares that there is but one order of men 
authorized to minister in sacred things, all of this 
order being of equal grade, and haying inherently 
equal spiritual rights. Episcopacy declares that the 
Christian ministry was established in three orders, 
called ever since the apostolic age, bishops, pres- 
byters, or elders, and deacons ; of which the highest 
only has a right to ordain and confirm, that of gene- 
ral supervision in a diocese, etc." p, 11. The main 
question is then stated, correctly, to be, that " con- 
cerning the superiority of bishops ;" and the object 



16 EPISCOPACY EXAMINED. 

of the essay is to prove, that, according to the New 
Testament, such an order existed, and was clothed 
with such peculiar powers, p. 11. Let it not be 
forgotten, that this is the main point in the case ; 
and that if this is not made out, so as to be binding 
on the church every where, the claims of Episcopacy 
fall to the ground. 

In endeavoring to establish this point, the author 
maintains, " that the apostles ordained," and denies 
that elders (presbyters) ever did. p. 14. In sup. 
porting this position, the plan of argument is to show, 
that " the apostles and elders had not equal power 
and rights." p. 14. An attempt is, therefore, made 
to prove that the difference between the two orders 
is, that the former had the power of ordination, the 
latter not. In pursuing the reasoning, (p. 16.) the 
writer endeavors to show, that " there is no scriptu* 
ral evidence that mere elders (presbyters) ordain, 
ed." Under this branch of the argument, he exa- 
mines the texts which have usually been adduced 
in favor of Presbyterian ordination. Having shown 
as he supposes, that these passages do not prove 
that they did thus ordain, Dr. O. next proceeds to 
the last branch of the subject, viz., that "this dis- 
tinction between elders and a grade superior to them, 
in regard especially to the power of ordaining, was 
so persevered in, as to indicate that it was a 'perma- 
nent arrangement, and not designed to be but tem- 
porary." p. 23. 

This is the outline of the argument. It mani- 



EPISCOPACY EXAMIKED. 17 

festly embraces the essential points of the case. 
And if these positions cannot be maintained, Episco- 
pacy has no binding obligation on men, and such a 
claim should be at once abandoned. This argument 
we propose, with great respect, but with entire free- 
dom, to examine. And we expect to show, that the 
point is not made out, that the New Testament has 
designated a superior rank of church officers, in- 
trusted with the sole power of ordination, and gene- 
ral superintendence of the church. 

In entering on this discussion, we shall first 
endeavor to ascertain the real point of the contro- 
versy, and to show that the Scripture authorities 
appealed to, do not establish the point maintained by 
Episcopalians. In pursuance of this, we remark, 
that the burden of proof lies wholly on the friends of 
Episcopacy. They set up a claim, — a claim which 
they affirm to be binding on all the churches of 
every age. It is a claim which is specific, and 
which must be made out, or their whole pretensions 
fall. In what predicament it may leave other 
churches, is not the question. It would not prove 
Episcopacy to be of divine origin, could its friends 
show that Presbyterianism is unfounded in the 
Scriptures ; or that Congregationalism has no claims 
to support ; or that Independency is unauthorized ; 
or even that lay-ordination is destitute of direct 
support. The question after all might be, whether 
it was the design of the apostles to establish any 
particular form of church government, any more 
2* 



18 EPISCOrACY EXAMINED. 

than to establish a fixed mode of civil administra- 
tion ? This question we do not intend to examine 
now, neither do we design to express any opinion 
on it. We say only, that it is a question on which 
much may be said, and which should not be con- 
sidered as settled in this controversy. The specific 
point to be made out is, that there is Scriptural 
authority for that which is claimed for the bishops. 
And we may remark further, that this is not a claim 
which can be defended by any doubtful passages of 
Scripture, or by any very circuitous mode of argu- 
mentation. As it is expected to affect the whole 
constitution of the church ; to constitute, in fact, the 
peculiarity of its organization ; and to determine, to 
a great extent at least, the validity of all its ordi- 
nances, and its ministry ; we have a right to demand 
that the proof should not be of a doubtful character, 
or of a nature which is not easily apprehended by 
the ordinary readers of the New Testament. 

We repeat, now, as of essential importance in this 
controversy, that the burden of proof lies on the 
friends of Episcopacy. It is theirs to make out this 
specific claim. To decide whether they can do so, 
is the object of this inquiry. 

The first question then, is, What is the claim ; or, 
what is the essential point which is to be made out 
in the defence of Episcopacy ? This claim is stated 
in the following words : (p. 11.) " Episcopacy de- 
clares, that the Christian ministry was established 
in three orders, called, ever since the apostolic age, 



'episcopacy sxamined. • 10 

bishops, presbyters, or elders, [if so, why do they 
now call the second order priests ?] and deacons ; of 
which the highest only has the right to ordain, and 
confirm, that of the chief administration in a diocese, 
and that of the chief administration of spiritual disci- 
pline, besides enjoying all the powers of the other 
grades." The main question, as thus stated, relates 
to the authority of bishops ; and the writer adds, 
" If we cannot authenticate the claims of the Episco- 
pal office, (the office of bishops,) we will surrender 
those of our deacons, and let all power be confined 
to the one office of presbyters." The same view 
of the main point of the controversy is given by 
Hooker, in his Ecclesiastical Polity, — b. vii. § 2. 

It will be seen that several claims are here set up 
in behalf of bishops. One is, the right of ordina- 
tion ; a second, that of confirmation ; a third, that of 
general supervision ; a fourth, that of the general 
administration of discipline. These are separate 
points to be made out; and a distinct argument 
might be entered into, to show that neither of them 
is founded on the authority of the Scriptures. To 
enter on this discussion, would require more time 
and space than we can now spare. Nor is it neces- 
sary, for we presume the Episcopalian «would be 
willing to stake the whole cause on his being able to 
make out the authority of ordination to lie solely in 
the bishop. For, obviously, if that cannot be made 
out, all the other pretensions are good for nothing ; 
and, as the writer of this tract limits his inquiries to 



20 EPISCOPACY EXAMINED. ' 

this single point, we shall confine our remarks to 
this also. 

The question, then, is, Has a bishop the sole 
power of ordaining ? Is setting apart to a sacred 
office, — to the office of preaching, and administering 
the sacraments, confined in the Xew Testament 
exclusively to this order of ministers ? The Epis- 
copalian claims that it is. We deny it, and ask him 
for the explicit proof of a point so simple as this, and 
one which we have a right to expect he will make 
out, with very great clearness, from the sacred 
Scriptures. 

The first proof adduced by the author is, that the 
apostles had the sole power of ordaining. This is a 
highly important point in the discussion, or rather, 
the very hinge of the controversy. We cannot, 
therefore, but express our surprise, that a writer who 
can see the value and bearing of an argument so 
clearly as Dr. Onderdonk, should not have thought 
himself called upon to devote more than two pages 
to its direct defence ; and that, without adducing any 
explicit passages of the Xew Testament. The 
argument stated in these two pages, or these parts 
of three pages, (14, 15, 16,) rests on the assumption 
that the apostles ordained. " That the apostles 
ordained, all agree. " Now, if this means anything 
to the purpose, it means that they ordained as apos. 
ties ; or that they were set apart to the apostolic 
office for the purpose of ordaining. But this we 
shall take the liberty to deny, and to prove to be an 



EPISCOPACY EXAMINED. 21 

unfounded claim. Having made this assumption, 
the writer adds, that a distinction is observed in the 
New Testament between " the apostles and elders," 
"the apostles and elders, and brethren." He next 
attempts to show, that this distinction was not made 
because they " were appointed by Christ personally," 
nor because "they had seen our Lord after his 
resurrection;" nor "because of this power of work- 
ing miracles :" and then the writer adds, "It follows, 
therefore, or will not at least be questioned" — a 
qualification which, by the way, seems to look as if 
the writer had himself no great confidence in the 
consecutiveness of the demonstration,—" that the 
apostles were distinguished from the elders, because 
they were superior to them in ministerial power and 
rights." p. 15. This is the argument ; and this is 
the whole of it. On the making out of this point, 
depends the stupendous fabric of Episcopacy. Here 
is the corner-stone, on which rests the claims of 
bishops ; this the position on which the imposing and 
mighty superstructure has been reared. Our read- 
ers will join with us in our amazement, that this 
point has not been made out with a clearer deduc- 
tion of arguments, than such as were fitted to lead 
to the ambiguous conclusion, " it follows, therefore, 
or—," 

Now, the only way of ascertaining whether this 
claim be well founded, is to appeal at once to the 
New Testament. The question, then, which we 
propose to settle now, is, Whether the apostles were 



22 EPISCOPACY EXAMINED. 

chosen for the distinctive and peculiar work of 
ordaining to sacred offices ? This the Episcopalian 
affirms. This we take the liberty of calling in 
question. 

The Evangelists have given three separate and 
full accounts of the appointment of the apostles. 
One is recorded by Matthew, ch. x. ; another by 
Mark, hi. 12, etc. ; the third by Luke, ch. vi. They 
were selected from the other disciples, and set apart 
to their work with great solemnity. Luke vi. The 
act was performed in the presence of a great multi- 
tude, and after the Saviour had passed the night in 
prayer to God. Luke vi. 12. The instructions 
given to them on the occasion occupy, in one part 
of the record, (Matt.) the entire chapter of forty- 
two verses. The directions are given with very 
great particularity, embracing a great variety of 
topics, evidently intended to guide them in all their 
ministry, and to furnish them with ample instruction 
as to the nature of their office. They refer to times 
which should follow the death of the Lord Jesus, 
and were designed to include the whole of their 
peculiar work. Matt. x. 17 — 23. 

Now, on the supposition of the Episcopalian, 
that the peculiarity of their work was to ordain, or 
that " they were distinguished from the elders be- 
cause they were superior to them in ministerial 
powers and rights," (p. 15.) we cannot but regard 
it as unaccountable, that we find not one word of 
this here. There is not the slightest allusion to any 






EPISCOPACY EXAMINED. 23 

such distinguishing "power, and rights." There is 
nothing which can be tortured into any such claim. 
This is the more remarkable, as on another occasion 
he sent forth seventy disciples at one time, (Luke x. 
1 — 16.) usually regarded by Episcopalians as the 
foundation of the second order of their ministers ; 
(See "the Scholar Armed,") and there is not the 
slightest intimation given, that they were to be infe- 
rior to the apostles in the power of ordaining, or 
superintending the churches. We do not know 
what explanation the Episcopalian will give of this 
remarkable omission in the instructions of the primi- 
tive bishops. 

This omission is not the less remarkable in the 
instructions which the Lord Jesus gave to these 
same apostles, after his resurrection from the dead. 
At that time, we should assuredly have expected an 
intimation of the existence of some such peculiar 
power. But, not the slightest hint occurs of any 
such exclusive authority and superintendence. Mat- 
thew, (xxviii. 18—20.) Mark, (xvi. 15 — 18.) and 
Luke, (xxiv. 47 — 49.) have each recorded these 
parting instructions. They have told us that he 
directed them to remain in Jerusalem (Luke,) until 
they were endued with power from on high, and 
then to go forth, and preach the gospel to every 
creature : but not a solitary syllable about any 
exclusive poiver of ordination ; about their being a 
peculiar order of ministers ; about their transmitting 
the peculiarity of the apostolic office to others* 



24 EPISCOPACV FXAMINED. 

We should have been glad to see some explanation 
of this fact. We wish to be apprised of the reason, 
if any exists, why, if the peculiarity of their office 
consisted in " superiority of ministerial powers and 
rights," neither at their election and ordination, nor 
in the departing charge of the Saviour, nor in any 
intermediate time, we ever hear of it ; that even the 
advocates for the powers of the bishop never pretend 
to adduce a solitary expression that can be con- 
strued into a reference to any such distinction. 

We proceed now to observe, that there is not any 
where else, in the New Testament, a statement that 
this was the peculiarity of their apostolic office. Of 
this any man may be satisfied, who will examine the 
New Testament. Or, he may find the proof in a 
less laborious way, by simply looking at the fact, 
that neither Dr. Onderdonk, nor any of the advo- 
cates of Episcopacy, pretend to adduce any such 
declaration. The apostles often speak of them- 
selves ; the historian of their doings (Luke,) often 
mentions them ; but the place remains yet to be de- 
signated, after this controversy has been carried on 
by keen-sighted disputants for several hundred 
years, which speaks of any such peculiarity of their 
office. 

This point, then, we shall consider as settled, 
and shall feel at liberty to make as much of it as we 
possibly can, in the argument. And we might here 
insist on the strong presumption thus furnished, that 
this settles the case. We should be very apt to 



EPISCOPACY EXAMINED. 25 

regard it as decisive in any other case. If two men 
go from a government to a foreign court, and one of 
them claims to be a plenipotentiary, and affirms that 
the other is a mere private secretary, or a consul, 
we expect that the claimant will sustain his preten- 
sions by an appeal to his commission or instructions. 
If he maintains that this is the peculiarity of his 
office, though he may li enjoy all the powers of the 
other grades," (p. 11.) we expect to find this clearly 
proved in the documents which he brings. If he is 
mentioned by no name that designates his office, — as 
the Episcopalian admits the bishop is not, — (pp. 
12, 13.) if his commission contains no such appoint- 
ment, and if we should learn, that specific instruc- 
tions were given to him at his appointment, and 
again repeated in a solemn manner when he left his 
native shores ; we should at least look with strong 
suspicions on these remarkable claims. Would not 
any foreign court decide at once that such preten- 
sions, under such circumstances, were utterly un- 
founded ? 

We proceed now to inquire whether it is possible 
to ascertain the peculiarity of the apostolic office? 
for it must be conceded that there was something to 
distinguish the apostles from the other ministers of 
the New Testament. Here, happily, we are in no 
way left in the dark. The Saviour, and the apos- 
tles and sacred writers themselves, have given an 
account which cannot be easily mistaken ; and our 
amazement is, that the writer of this tract has not 
3 



26 EPISCOPACY EXAMINED. 

adverted to it. The first account which we adduce 
is from the lips of the Saviour himself. In those 
solemn moments, when he was about to leave the 
world ; when the work of atonement was finished ; 
and when he gave the apostles their final commis- 
sion, he indicated the nature of their labors, and the 
peculiarity of their office in these words : (Luke 
xxiv. 48.) "And ye are witnesses of these things. 
And behold, I send the promise of my Father upon 
you," etc. The object of their special appointment, 
which he here specifies, was, that they should be 
witnesses to all nations. (Comp. v. 47, and Matt. 
xxviii. 18, 19.) The "things" of which they were 
to bear witness, he specifies in the preceding verse. 
They were his sufferings in accordance with the 
predictions of the prophets : " thus it is written and 
thus it behoved Christ to surfer ;" and his resurrec- 
tion from the dead : " and to rise from the dead the 
third day." These were the points to bear " wit- 
ness" to which they had been selected ; and these 
were the points on which they, in fact, insisted in 
their ministry. See the Acts of the Apostles, 
passim. 

We would next remark, that this is expressly de- 
clared to be the " peculiarity" of the apostolic office. 
It was done so at the election of an apostle to fill up 
the vacated place of Judas. Here, if the peculiar 
design had been to confer " superiority in ministerial 
rights and powers," we should expect to be favored 
with some account of it. It was the very time when 



EPISCOPACY EXAMINED. 27 

we should expect them to give an account of the 
reason why they filled up the vacancy in the col- 
lege of apostles, and when they actually did make 
such a statement. Their words are these : (Acts i. 
21, 22.) "Wherefore, of these men which have 
companied with us, all the time that the Lord Jesus 
went in and out among us, beginning from the bap- 
tism of John, unto that same day when he was taken 
up from us, must one be ordained to be a witness 
WITH US of his resurrection." This passage we 
consider to be absolutely decisive on the point before 
us. It shows, first, for what purpose they ordained 
him ; and, second, that they were ordained for the 
same purpose. Why do we hear nothing on this 
occasion, of their " superiority of ministerial rights 
and powers ?" Why nothing of their peculiar prero- 
gative to ordain ? Why nothing of their " general 
superintendence" of the church ? Plainly, because 
they had conceived of nothing of this kind, as enter- 
ing into their original commission and peculiar de- 
sign. For this purpose of bearing testimony to the 
world of the fact of the resurrection of the Messiah, 
they had been originally selected. For this they 
had been prepared, by a long, intimate acquaintance 
with the Saviour. They had seen him ; had been 
with him in various scenes, fitted to instruct them 
more fully in his designs and character ; had enjoyed 
an intimate personal friendship with him, (1 John u 
1.) and were thus qualified to go forth as "wit- 
nesses" of what they had seen and heard ; to con% 



28 EPISCOPACY EXAMINED. 

firm the great doctrine that the Messiah had come, 
had died, and had risen, according to the predic- 
tions of the prophets. We just add here, that these 
truths were of sufficient importance to demand the 
appointment of twelve honest men to give them con- 
firmation. It has been shown, over and over again, 
that there was consummate wisdom in the appoint- 
ment of witnesses enough to satisfy any reasonable 
mind, and yet not so many as to give it the appear- 
ance of tumult or popular excitement. The truth 
of the whole scheme of Christianity rested on mak- 
ing out the fact, that the Lord Jesus had risen from 
the dead ; and the importance of that religion to the 
welfare of mankind, demanded that this should be 
substantiated to the conviction of the world. Hence 
the anxiety of the eleven to complete the number of 
the original witnesses selected by the Saviour, and 
that the person chosen should have the same ac- 
quaintance with the facts that they had themselves. 
It is worthy, also, of remark, that in the account 
which the historian gives of their labors, this is the 
main idea which is presented. Acts ii. 32. " This 
Jesus hath God raised up, whereof we are witnesses." 
v. 32. "And we are witnesses of these things." x. 
39 — 41. "And we are witnesses of all things which 
he did, both in the land of the Jews and in Jerusa- 
lem, whom they slew and hanged on a tree." " Him 
God raised up the third day, and showed him open- 
ly ; not to all the people, but unto witnesses chosen 
before of God, even unto us" etc. In this place we 



EPISCOPACY EXAMINED. <20 

meet with another explicit declaration, that this was 
the object of their original appointment. They 
were " chosen" for this, and set apart in the holy 
presence of God to this work. Why do we not 
hear any thing of " their superiority in ministerial 
rights and powers?" Why not an intimation of the 
power of confirming, and of general superintend- 
ence ? We repeat, that it is not possible to answer 
these questions, except on the supposition, that they 
did not regard any such powers as at all entering 
into the peculiarity of their commission. 

Having disposed of all that is said in the New Tes- 
tament, so far as we know, of the original design of 
the appointment to the apostolic office, we proceed to 
another and somewhat independent source of evidence. 
The original number of the apostles was twelve. The 
design of their selection we have seen. For important 
purposes, however, it pleased God to add to their num- 
ber, one, who had not been a personal attendant on the 
ministry of the Saviour, and who was called to the 
apostleship four years after the crucifixion and resur- 
rection of Christ. Now this is a case, evidently, which 
must throw very important light on our inquiries. It 
is independent of the others. And as he was not 
a personal observer of the life and death of Jesus ; 
as he was not an original " witness" in the case, we 
may expect in the record of his appointment, a full 
account of his " superiority in ministerial rights and 
powers." If such superiority entered into the pecu- 
liarity of the apostolic office, this was the very case 
3* 



30 EPISCOPACY EXAMINED. 

where we expect to find it. His conversion was 
subsequent to the resurrection. He was to be em- 
ployed extensively in founding and organizing 
churches. He was to have intrusted to him almost 
the entire pagan world. Comp. Rom. xv. 16. His 
very business was one that seemed to call for some 
specific account of "superiority in ministerial 
rights," if any such rights were involved in the 
apostolic office. How natural to expect a statement 
of such rights ; and an account of the " general su- 
perintendence" intrusted to him, as an apostle ! Let 
us look, therefore, and see how the case stands. 
We have three distinct accounts of his conversion, 
and appointment to the apostleship, in each of which 
the design of his appointment is stated. Acts xxii. 
14, 15. In his discourse before the Jews, he re- 
peats the charge given to him by Ananias, at Da- 
mascus : " The God of our fathers hath chosen thee," 
etc. " For thou shalt be his witness unto all men 
of what thou hast seen and heard" Again, (Acts 
xxvi. 16.) in his speech before Agrippa, Paul 
repeats the words addressed to him by the Lord 
Jesus in his original commission : " I have appeared 
unto thee for this purpose, to make thee a minister 
iTtnpsrrjv and a witness of those things," etc. Again, 
(Acts xxiii. 11.) in the account which is given of 
his past and future work, it is said : " As thou hast 
testified of me in Jerusalem, so must thou bear wit- 
ness also at Rome." 

This is the account which is given of the call 



EPISCOPACY EXAMINED 31 

of Saul of Tarsus to the apostolic office. But where 
is there a single syllable of any " superiority in min- 
isterial powers and rights," as constituting the pe- 
culiarity of his office? We respectfully ask the 
writer of this tract, and all other advocates of Epis- 
copacy, to point to us a " light or shadow " of any 
such Episcopal investment. We think their argu- 
ment demands it. And if there is no such account, 
neither in the original choice of the twelve, nor in 
the appointment of Matthias, nor in the selection 
of the apostle to the Gentiles ; we take the liberty 
to insist with firmness on a satisfactory explanation 
of the causes which operated to produce the omis- 
sion of the very gest of their office, according to 
Episcopacy. We insist on being told of some rea- 
sons, prudential or otherwise, which made it proper 
to pass over the very vitality of the original com- 
mission. 

But we have not done with the apostle Paul. 
He is too important a " witness " for us, as well as 
for the purpose for which he was appointed, to be 
dismissed without further attention. It has been 
remarked already, that he was not a personal fol- 
lower of Jesus of Nazareth, and was not present at 
his death and ascension. It may be asked, then, 
how could he be a witness, in the sense, and for the 
purposes, already described ? Let us see how this 
was provided for. We transcribe the account from 
his own statement of the address made to him by 
Ananias. Acts xxii. 14. " The God of our fathers 



32 EPISCOPACY EXAMINED. 

hath chosen thee, that thou shouldst know his will* 
and see that Just One, and shouldst hear the words 
of his mouth" That he had thus seen him, it is not 
necessary to prove. See 1 Cor. xv. 8 ; Acts ix. 5, 
17. The inference which we here draw is, that he 
was permitted to see the Lord Jesus in an extraor- 
dinary manner, for the express purpose of qualifying 
him to be invested with the peculiarity of" the ajpos- 
tleship. This inference, sufficiently clear from the 
very statement, we shall now proceed to put beyond 
the possibility of doubt. 

We turn, then, to another account which Paul 
has given of his call to the apostleship, 1 Cor. ix. 1, 
2 : " Am I not an apostle ? Am I not free 1 Have 
I not seen Jesus Christ our Lord f* We adduce 
this passage as proof, that to have seen Jesus Christ, 
was considered as an indispensable qualification for 
the apostleship. So Paul regarded it in his own 
case. We adduce it also for another purpose, viz. 
to strengthen our main position, that the apostles 
were designated to their office specifically as wit- 
nesses to the character and resurrection of Christ. 
If this was not the design, we ask, why does Paul 
appeal to the fact that he had seen the Saviour, as 
proof that he was qualified to be an apostle ? And 
we further ask, with emphasis, If the apostles, as 
Episcopalians pretend, did, in virtue of their office, 
possess ' superiority in ministerial powers, and rights,' 
why did not Paul once hint at the fact in this pas- 
sage ? His express object was to vindicate his claim 



EPISCOPACY EXAMINED. 33 

to the apostleship. In doing this, he appeals to that 
which we maintain to have constituted the peculiar- 
ity of the office, his being " witness " to the Saviour. 
In this instance we have a circumstance, of which 
Paley would make much in an argument, if it fell in 
with the design of the u Horse Paulinse." We claim 
the privilege of making as much of it, upon the ques- 
tion, whether the peculiarity of the apostolic office 
was " superiority of ministerial powers and rights." 
We have now examined all the passages of Scrip- 
ture which state the design of the apostleship. And 
we have shown, if we mistake not, that the ground 
of the distinction between the u apostles and elders," 
" the apostles and elders, and brethren," was not 
that the former had superiority of " ministerial pow- 
ers and rights." We might leave the argument 
here ; for if the Episcopalians cannot make out this 
point to entire satisfaction, all that is said about suc- 
cessors in the apostolic office, and about perpetuat- 
ing apostleship, must be nugatory, and vain. But 
we have an independent topic of remark here ; and 
one which bears on the subject, therefore, with all 
the force of a cumulative argument. To the con- 
sideration of this, we are led by the next position 
of Dr. Onderdonk. This is stated in the following 
words : that " there was continued, as had begun in 
the apostles, an order of ministers superior to the 
elders." p. 16. This he attempts to prove, on the 
ground that " there is no scriptural evidence that 
mere elders (presbyters) ordained." pp. 16 — 23. 



34 EPISCOPACY EXAMINED'. 

And that " the above distinction between elders and 
a grade superior to them, in regard especially to 
the power of ordaining, was so persevered in as to 
indicate that it was a permanent arrangement, and 
not designed to be but temporary." pp. 23 — 29, 
We shall reverse the order of this argument. 

In the inquiry, then, whether this distinction was 
continued or persevered in, we might insist on what 
has been already shown, as decisive. If the origi- 
nal distinction was what we have proved it to be, it 
could not be persevered in, without (as in the ease- 
of Paul) a personal, direct manifestation of the as*. 
cended Saviour, to qualify every future incumbent 
in the apostleship. 1 .Cor. ix. 1. No modern 
" bishop," we presume, will lay claim to this. The 
very supposition that any such revelation was ne«* 
cessary, would dethrone every prelate, and. prostrate 
every mitre in Christendom* 

But we have, as before remarked, an indepen^ 
dent train of arguments on this point. It is evident 
that the whole burden of proof here lies on the Epis- 
copalian. He maintains that such an original dis- 
tinction existed, and that it was perpetuated. Both 
these positions we deny* The first we have shown 
to be unfounded, and have thus virtually destroyed, 
the other. We proceed, however, to the compara-. 
tively needless task of showing that Dr. Onderdonk's 
second position is equally unfounded. His evidence 
we shall examine as we find it scattered throughout 
the tract before us. 



EPISCOPACY EXAMINED. 35 

The first argument is, that " some are named 
'apostles in Scripture, who were not thus appointed, 
^i. e. by the Saviour himself,) as Matthias, Barna- 
bas, and probably James, the brother of our Lord, 
all ordained by merely human ordainers. Silvanus 
also, and Timothy, are called "apostles;" and be- 
sides Andronicus and Junia, others could be added 
to the list." p. 15. 

The argument here is, that the name " apostle " 
is given to them, and that they held, therefore, the 
peculiar office in question. But the mere circum- 
stance that they had this name, would not, of itself, 
•establish this point. It is not necessary, we pre- 
sume, to apprise our readers, that the word apostle 
means one who is sent, and may be applied to any 
person employed to deliver a message ; and in a 
general sense, to any ministers of religion, or to any 
one sent to proclaim the message of life. Thus in 
John xiii. 16, it is applied to any messenger, sustain- 
ing the same relation to one who sends him, that 
the servant does to his master. " The servant is 
not greater than his lord, [master] neither he that is 
sent, dirocTTolos, greater than he that sent him." Thus 
it is applied (Phil. ii. 25) to Epaphroditus, not as an 
apostle, in the specific sense of the term, but as a 
messenger, sent by the church at Philippi, to supply 
the wants of Paul. (Comp. Phil. iv. 18.) " Epaph- 
roditus, my brother and companion in labor, but 
your messenger," tya* si d-6aro\o V , your apostle. Thus 
also in 2 Cor. viii. 23, it is applied to the " brethren," 



36 EPISCOPACY EXAMINED. 

" the messengers of the churches ;" " our brethren 
are the messengers of the churches" drroaro'Xoi farXjtrtdr. 
These passages show beyond a question, that the 
name is often used in the New Testament, in its 
generic signification, and consequently the mere fact 
that it is applied to an individual, is not proof that 
he was an apostle in its specific sense, — the only 
sense which would be of value in the argument of the 
Episcopalian. The connections, the circumstances, 
are to determine its meaning. We make this re- 
mark, in accordance with the judicious observation 
of Dr. Onderdonk, p. 13. "J little reflection and 
practice will enable any of our readers to look in 
Scripture for the several sacred offices, indepen- 
dently of the names there or elsewhere given to 
them" 

The question then is, Whether the name apostle 
is so given to the persons here designated, as to show 
that it is used in its strict, specific sense ? 

The first case is that of " Matthias." The rea- 
son why the name was given to him, we have al- 
ready shown. He was an apostle in the strict, 
proper sense, because he was chosen to be a " wit- 
ness " of the resurrection of the Saviour. Acts i. 
22. 

The second case is that of Barnabas. He is 
once called an apostle. (Acts xiv. 14.) That he 
was not an apostle in the strict, proper sense, Dr. 
Onderdonk has himself most laboriously and satis- 
factorily proved. In his argument against Presby. 



EPISCOPACY EXAMINED. 37 

terian ordination, (p. 16, 17.) he has taken much 
pains to show that Barnabas was set apart (Acts 
xiii. 1 — 3) " to a special missionary work ;" " was 
merely set apart to a particular field of duty ;" that 
is, was sent as a messenger of the church to perform 
a particular piece of work. It is observable that 
before this, Barnabas is called merely " a prophet 
and teacher;" (Acts xiii. 1 — 11) that he is called 
an apostle in immediate connection with this desig- 
nation, and no where else. Acts xiv. 14. How Dr. 
Onderdonk, after having shown so conclusively, as 
we think, that the transaction at Antioch was not a 
Presbyterian ordination ; that it was a mere desig- 
nation to a particular field of labor, should persist 
in maintaining that Barnabas was an apostle, in the 
strict sense, as having a " superiority of ministerial 
rights and powers," we profess our inability to con- 
ceive. We shall thus dismiss the case of Matthias 
and Barnabas. 

The next case is " probably James, the brother 
of our Lord." The use of the word probably, here, 
shows a wish to press cases into the service, which 
we regret to see in a tract, making strong preten- 
sions to strict demonstration : (comp. pp. 3, 11, 16, 
23, etc.) but it evinces a deficiency of strong, palpa- 
ble instances, which betrays the conscious feeble- 
ness of the argument. " James, the Lord's brother," 
is once mentioned as an apostle : Gal. i. 19. But 
it could not have escaped the recollection of Dr. O. 
that there were two of the name of James among 
4 



38 EPISCOPACY EXAMINED'. 

the apostles in the specific sense of the term ; viz. 
James the brother of John, and son of Zebedee, and 
James the son of Alpheus. Matt. x. 3 ; Luke vi. 15. 
Nor can it be unknown to him, that the word brother 
was used by the Hebrews to denote a relative more 
remote than that which is designated by the ordinary 
use of the word among us ; and that Alpheus w r as 
probably a connection of the family of our Lord. 
What proof, then, is there, that he was not referred 
to in the passage before us ? As this case is alleged 
to have only a probability in its favor, we consider 
it disposed of. 

Sylvanus and Timothy are the next mentioned. 
As their claim to be considered apostles rests on the 
same foundation, so far as the name is any evidence, 
we shall dispose of these cases by considering that 
of Timothy at length in a subsequent part of the 
argument. 

The remaining cases are those of Andronicus and 
Junia. The foundation for their claim to be enroll- 
ed as apostles, is the following mention of them by 
Paul : Rom. xvi. 7. " Salute Andronicus, and Ju- 
nia, my kinsmen, who are of note among the apos- 
tles" oiTivig elaiv eviarjixoi iv roT$ drrocrToXois. On thlS claim 

we remark : (1.) Admitting that they are here 
called apostles, the name, as we have proved, does 
not imply that they had any " superiority of minis- 
terial rights and powers." They might have been 
distinguished as messengers, or laborers, like Epaph- 
roditus. (2.) It is clear, that the apostle did not 



EPISCOPACY EXAMINED. 39 

mean to give them the name of apostles at all. If he 
had designed it, the phraseology would have been 
different. Comp. Rom. i. 1 ; 1 Cor. i. 1 ; 2 Cor. i. 
1 ; Phil. i. 1. (3.) All that the expression fairly 
implies, is, that they, having been early converted, 
(Rom. xvi. 7) and being acquainted with the apos- 
tles at Jerusalem, were held in high esteem by them ; 
the apostles regarded them with confidence and af- 
fection. We consider this case, therefore, as dis- 
posed of.* 

The next point of proof in the tract before us, 
" that the distinction between elders and a grade 
superior to them, in regard especially to the power 
of ordaining, was so persevered in as to indicate 
that it was a permanent arrangement," is drawn 
from the charge given by the apostle Paul to the 
elders of Ephesus. Acts xx. 28 — 35. The point 
of this evidence, as we understand it, is this. Paul 
charges the elders at Ephesus to u take heed to 
themselves," — u to take h^ed to all the flock over 
which the Holy Ghost had made them overseers, — 
to feed the church of God, — to watch against the 
grievous wolves that would assail the flock," etc. 
In all this, we are told, there is not a word respect- 
ing the power of ordaining, nor any thing which 
shows that they had the power of clerical discipline. 

* Dr. Onderdonk says that Calvin, in his Institutes, " al- 
lows Andronicus and Junta to have been apostles ;" but he 
ought to have added that Calvin, in hi3 Commentary on the 
passage, written at a later period, denies that they were apos- 
tles in the specific sense of the term. 



40 BP1SCOFACY EXAMINES. 

u No power is intimated to depose from office one 
of their own number, or an unsound minister coming 
among them." They are to " tend " or " rule" the 
flock as shepherds ; " for shepherds do not tend and 
rule shepherds." pp. 23, 24. 

This is affirmed to be the sole power of these 
elders. In connection with this, we are asked to 
read the epistles to Timothy, — the power there 
given "personally to Timothy atEphesus" (p. 23.) 
or as it is elsewhere expressed. " Compare now 
with this sum total of power assigned to mere elders, 
or presbyters, that of Timothy at Ephesus, the very- 
city and region in which those addressed by Paul 
in Acts xx,, resided and ministered." p. 25. In 
those epistles it is said, that the " right of governing 
the clergy, and ordaining, is ascribed to him per- 
sonally;" and numerous undisputed passages are 
then adduced, to show that Timothy is addressed as 
having this power. 1 Tim. i. 18 ; iii. 14, 15 ; iv. 
6 ; 1 Tim. i. 3 ; v. 19—21, etc. etc. 

Now this argument proceeds on the following 
assumptions, viz : 1. That Timothy was called an 
apostle ; was invested with the same powers as the 
apostles, and was one of their successors in the of- 
fice. 2. That he was, at the time when Paul gave 
his charge to the elders at Miletus, bishop of Ephe- 
sus. 3. That the " elders" summoned to Miletus, 
were ministers of the gospel of the second order, or 
as they are now termed, usually, priests, in contra* 
distinction from bishops and deacons. If these 



EPISCOPACY EXAMINED. 41 

points are not made out from the New Testament, or 
if any one of them fails, this argument for " Episco- 
pacy tested by Scripture," will be of no value. We 
shall take them up and dispose of them in their order. 

The first claim is, that Timothy is called an 
" apostle," and was, therefore, clothed with apos- 
tolic powers. This claim is advanced on p. 15. 
u Silvanus also, and Timothy, are called 'apostles,' " 
and the claim is implied in the whole argument, and 
is essential to its validity. The proof on which this 
claim is made to rest, is contained in 1 Thess. i. 1, 
compared with 1 Thess. ii. 6. Paul, Silvanus, and 
Timothy, are joined together in the commencement 
of the epistle, as writing it to the church at Thessa- 
lonica ; and in ch. ii. 6, the following expression 
occurs, "Nor of man sought we glory, — w 7 hen we 
might have been burdensome as the apostles of 
Christ." This is the sole proof of the apostleship of 
Timothy, — of which so much as is made in the 
Episcopal controversy, and which is usually appeal- 
ed to as itself sufficient to settle the question. 

Now without insisting on the point which we 
have made out, that the apostolic office was confer- 
red not to impart " superiority of ministerial rights 
and powers," but to establish every where the great 
doctrine of the truth of Christianity, and that conse- 
quently if Timothy is called an apostle, it is only in 
the generic sense of the word, to which we have 
adverted, and that Paul might also on this occasion 

speak of himself, as joined with Timothy and Silva- 
4 # 



42 EPISCOPACY EXAMINED. 

nue, as a messenger of the churches ; (comp. Acts 
xiii. 2; xiv. 14; Rom. xvi. 25; 2 Cor. viii. 23.) 
not to insist on this position, we shall dispose of this 
claim by the following considerations. 1. The 
passage does not fairly imply that Timothy was even 
called an apostle. For it is admitted in the tract, 
(p. 15.) that "it is not unusual for St. Paul to use 
the plural number of himself only." It is argued 
indeed that the words " apostles," and " our own 
souls," (v. 8.) being inapplicable to the singular use 
of the plural number, hence the " three whose names 
are at the head of the epistle, are here spoken of 
jointly." But if Paul used the plural number as 
applicable to himself, would it not be natural for 
him to continue its use, and to employ the adjectives, 
etc, connected with it in the same number ? Besides, 
there is conclusive evidence that, Paul did not intend 
to include the " three" named at the head of the 
epistle, in this expression, in v. 6. For in the verses 
immediately preceding, mention is made that " we 
had suffered before, and were shamefully treated, as 
ye know, at Philippi," etc. Now it is capable of 
demonstration, that Timothy was not present at that 
time, and was not engaged in those labors, or sub- 
jected to those sufferings at Philippi. Acts xvi. 12, 
19; xviii. 1 — 4. It follows, therefore, that Paul 
did net intend here, to imply that " the three named 
at the head of the epistle" were apostles ; and, 
that he either intended to speak of himself alone, in 
v. 6. is more probable, that he spoke of 



EPISCOPACY EXAMINED. 43 

himself as one of the apostles, and of what the apos- 
tles might do in virtue of their office ; that is, that 
they might be burdensome, or might " use authority," 
as in the margin. 

Our next proof that Timothy was not an apostle, 
is, that he is expressly distinguished from Paul, as 
an apostle ; that is, in the same verse, Paul is care- 
ful to speak of himself as an apostle, and of Timothy 
as not an apostle. Thus, 2 Cor. i. 1, " Paul an 
apostle of Jesus Christ, and Timothy our brother." 
Again, Col. i. 1, " Paul an apostle of Jesus Christ, 
and Timothy our brother." Now our argument is 
this, that if Paul regarded Timothy as an apostle, 
it is remarkable that he should be so careful to make 
this distinction, when his own name is mentioned as 
an apostle. Why did he not also make the same 
honorable mention of Timothy ? — Will some of our 
Episcopal friends be kind enough to state why this 
distinction is made? — The distinction is the more 
remarkable from the next consideration to be addu- 
ced, which is, that Paul is so cautious on this point, 
so resolved not to call Timothy an apostle, that 
when their names are joined together, as in any 
sense claiming the same appellation, it is not as apos* 
tles 9 but as servants. Phil. i. 1 : " Paul and Timo- 
theus, the servants of Jesus Christ." See also, 
1 Thess. i. 1 ; 2 Thess. i. 1. These considerations 
put it beyond debate, in our view, that Timothy is 
not called an apostle in the New Testament. This* 



44 EPISCOPACY EXAMINED. 

it will be perceived, is an important advance in our 
argument. 

The second claim for Timothy is, that he was 
bishop of Ephesus. This claim is essential to the 
argument of Dr. Onderdonk, and is every where 
implied in what he says of Timothy. See pp. 23, 
25. Proof is not indeed attempted ; but it is as- 
sumed as a conceded point. Now this point should 
have been made out, for it is not one of those which 
we are disposed by any means to concede. It is to 
be remembered too, that it is a point which is to be 
made out from the New Testament, for our inquiry is, 
whether Episcopacy can be defended " by Scrip- 
ture." Let us see how this matter stands. 

It may be proper here to remark, that the sub- 
scription at the close of the second epistle to Tim- 
othy, " ordained first bishop of the church of the 
Ephesians," etc., is admitted on all hands not to be 
inspired, and therefore is of no authority in this 
argument. Assuredly Paul would not close a letter 
in this way, by seriously informing Timothy that he 
wrote a second epistle to him, etc., and by append- 
ing this to the letter. By whom these subscriptions 
to the epistles were added, is unknown. Some of 
them are manifestly false ; and none of them, though 
true, are of any authority. The subscription here 
belongs, we believe, to the former clas3. 

Now, how does the case stand in the New Testa- 
ment, with respect to Timothy ? What testimony 



EPISCOPACY EXAMINED. 45 

does it afford, as to nis being " bishop of Ephesus ?" 
A few observations will save further debate, we 
trust, on this subject. 

1. It is admitted that he was not at Ephesus, at 
the time when Paul made his address to the elders 
at Miletus. Thus, p. 25, " Ephesus was without a 
bishop when Paul addressed the elders, Timothy 
not having been placed over that church till some 
time afterwards." Here then was one diocese, or 
one collection of churches, which is admitted to have 
been constituted without a bishop. The presumption 
is, that all others were organized in the same way. 
2. The charge which Paul gives to the elders 
proves that Timothy was not there ; and proves fur- 
ther, that they, at that time, had no bishops, and that 
they previously had done. They are charged to take 
heed to themselves, and to all the flock, " to feed" 
qr "to rule" the flock, etc. But not one word is to 
be found of their having then any prelatical bishops ; 
not one word of Timothy as their Episcopal leader. 
Not an exhortation is given to be subject to any 
prelate ; not an intimation that they would ever be 
called on to recognize any such bishops. Not one 
word of lamentation or condolence is expressed, that 
they were not fully supplied with all proper Episco- 
pal authority. All of which is inexplicable, on the 
supposition that they were then destitute, and that 
they would be supplied with an officer " superior in 
ministerial rights and powers." Nay, they are 
themselves expressly called bishops, without the 



46 EPISCOPACY EXAMINED. 

slightest intimation that there were any higher, or 
more honorable prelates than themselves. Acts 
xx. 28 : " Take heed, therefore, to yourselves, and 
to all the flock over the which the Holy Ghost hath 
made you bishops" tntmrfms. 

3. It is admitted by us, that Timothy subsequent- 
ly ivas at Ephesus, and that he was left there for an 
important purpose, by the apostle Paul. This was 
when Paul went to Macedonia. 1 Tim. i. 3. This 
is the only intimation, that we know of, in the New 
Testament, that Timothy was ever at Ephesus at all. 
It is important, then, to ascertain whether he was left 
there as a permanent bishop ? Now in settling this, 
we remark, it is no where intimated in the New Tes- 
tament, that he was such a bishop. The passage 
before us, 1 Tim. i. 3, states, that when they were 
travelling together, Paul left him there, while he 
himself should go over into Macedonia. The object 
for which he left him is explicitly stated, and that 
object was not that he should be a permanent bishop. 
It is said to be " to charge some that they teach no 
other doctrine, neither to give heed to endless gene- 
alogies," etc. ; that is, manifestly to perform a tem- 
porary office of regulating certain disorders in the 
church ; of silencing certain false teachers, of Jew- 
ish extraction ; of producing, in one word, what the 
personal influence of the apostle himself might have 
produced, but for a sudden, and unexpected call to 
Macedonia. Acts xx. 1. Hence it is perfectly clear 
that the apostle designed this as a temporary ap. 



EPISCOPACY EXAMINED. 47 

pointment for a specific object, and that object was 
not to be prelate of the church. Thus he says, 
1 Tim. iv. 13, " Till I come, give attention to read- 
ing," etc. : implying that his temporary office was 
then to cease. Thus too, referring to the same 
purpose to return and join Timothy, he says, 
1 Tim. iii. 14, 15 : " These things I write unto thee, 
hoping to come unto thee shortly ; but if I tarry 
long, that thou mightest know how thou oughtest to 
behave thyself in the house of God," etc. ; implying 
that these directions were particularly to serve him 
during his appointment to the specific business of 
regulating some disordered affairs produced by 
false teachers, and which might require the discipline 
of even some of the bishops and deacons of the 
church, ch. v. vi. These directions, involving 
general principles indeed, and of value to regulate 
his whole life, yet had, nevertheless, a manifest 
special reference to the cases which might occur 
there, in putting a period to the promulgation of 
erroneous doctrines by Jewish teachers. 1 Tim. i. 3. 
4. " That Paul and Timothy were together at 
Ephesns, and that Paul left him there when he went 
on some occasion into Macedonia, may be plainly 
inferred from 1 Tim. i. 3. " I besought thee to abide 
still at Ephesus, when I went into Macedonia." The 
time to which there is here an allusion is the more 
easily ascertained, because the apostle is recorded 
to have been twice only at Ephesus ; on the first 



48 EPISCOPACY EXAMINED. 

occasion, he merely called on his voyage from Co* 
rinth and Jerusalem ; on the second, he went from 
Ephesus into Macedonia, according to the words of 
the epistle. 

u That Timothy was left at Ephesus, when Paul, 
expelled by the riot, went into Macedonia, obtains 
satisfactory proofs. Before he wrote his first epistle 
to the Corinthians, Paul sent Timothy and Erastus 
into Macedonia, but he himself remained in Asia for 
some time. Acts xix. 22. 1 Cor. iv. 17; xvi. 10. 
In the first letter to the Corinthians, which he wrote 
at Ephesus, and sent by Titus to Corinth, he men- 
tioned his purpose of coming to them, but not imme- 
diately ; of which Luke also informs us, Acts xix. 
21, and desired them, if Timothy came to them, 
1 Cor. xvi. 10, 11, to conduct him forth in peace, 
that he might come to Paul, then at Ephesus, for he 
looked for him, with the brethren. When he closed 
that letter, he was expecting Timothy's return, which 
that letter might also have hastened. Paul remain- 
ed at Ephesus, on this visit, the space of three years. 
Acts xx. 31. There is therefore no reason to sup- 
pose, that he was disappointed in his expectation of 
the arrival of Timothy from Corinth at Ephesus, 
before he went into Macedonia ; and if so, he might 
have left him there, as he at some period certainly 
did. 1 Tim. i. 3. He had intended to go by Co- 
rinth into Macedonia, 2 Cor. i. 15, 16, but changed 
his mind and went by Troas thither. 1 Cor. xvi. 5 ; 



EPISCOPACY EXAMINED. 49 

2 Cor. ii. 12, 13. Whilst in Macedonia, he wrote 
his first letter to Timothy, for he proposed to him to 
remain at Ephesus until he should call there on his 
way to Jerusalem. 1 Tim. i. 3 ; iii. 14, 15. The 
words imply, that Paul might tarry some time ; 
and that he did so before he went into Greece, is 
fairly implied in the expression, " And when he had 
gone over those parts, and given them much exhor- 
tation, he came into Greece." Acts xx. 2. Timo- 
thy was advised, solicited, or besought (trapzKokrioa) to 
abide still at Ephesus, which gave him liberty to 
exercise his discretion, but several motives must 
have influenced him to go to the apostle. The ene- 
mies at Ephesus were numerous and violent ; Timo- 
thy was young ; his affection for Paul ardent ; the 
request of Paul that he should abide at Ephesus was 
not peremptory ; and Paul told him he expected to 
tarry a long time. Also Timothy had been, from 
their commencement, familiarly acquainted with the 
churches in Macedonia and Greece. Accordingly 
we find Timothy in Macedonia when Paul wrote 
his second epistle to the Corinthians. 1 Cor. i. 1. 
The apostle went from Macedonia into Greece, 
Acts xx. 2, as he had promised in that letter, chap, 
xiii. 1, and abode there three months. Acts xx. 3. 
Timothy was with him at Corinth, for he sends his 
salutations to the Romans, Rom. xvi. 21, in that fa- 
mous epistle written from thence.* 

* Compare Acts xviii. 2, with Rom. xvi. 3. Vide Acts 19, 
xviii. 26. I Cor. xvi. 19. 

5 



50 EPISCOPACY EXAMINED. 

" That there was sufficient time for Paul to have 
written from Macedonia to Timothy at Ephesus, 
and for Timothy to have spent some months at 
Ephesus, before he came to Paul in Macedonia, ap- 
pears from the time he waited for Titus at Troas, 
2 Cor. ii. 12, 13, his determination not to go to Co- 
rinth till he could do it without heaviness, 2 Cor. 
ii. 1, his distress in Macedonia before Titus arrived, 
2 Cor. vii. 5, and his success in raising charities for 
the saints in Judea, 2 Cor. viii. 2, 3 ; ix. 4. He had 
intended to tarry at Ephesus until Pentecost, 1 Cor. 
xvi. 8, but went sooner, Acts xx. 1. He passed on 
to Jerusalem at another Pentecost, Acts xx. 16 ; all 
which time he was in Macedonia, except three 
months. Acts xx. 3. 

" That Paul expected to spend so much time in 
Macedonia and Greece, may be collected from his 
intimation, 1 Cor. xvi. 6, that he might spend the 
winter with the Corinthian church. The apostle's 
purpose of sailing from Corinth was disappointed by 
the insidiousness of his own countrymen ; he there- 
fore went up into Macedonia again, that he might 
pass over to Troas with his companions. Timothy 
was among those who crossed first. Acts xx. 3, 5. 
Paul's disappointment in sailing from Corinth, and 
his wish to reach Jerusalem by Pentecost, prevented 
the call he intended at Ephesus, 1 Tim. iii. 14, 15, 
but he landed at Miletus, and sent for the elders of 
the church at Ephesus. 

" The directions of the apostle in the third chapter 



BPISCOPACY EXAMINED. 51 

of the first epistle to Timothy, fairly imply that he 
had left the church at Ephesus, according to his 
usual practice, without officers ; for he gives this 
evangelist, not a new commission, he already had 
power to ordain, but instructions as to the choice of 
bishops, that is, presbyters and deacons. These had 
been complied with before he landed at Miletus. 
Acts xx. 17. This record of the existence of elders 
at Ephesus, compared with the directions given to 
Timothy, not only renders it probable that Timothy 
had ordained them, but fortifies the presumption that 
the first epistle to Timothy was written in Macedo- 
nia, before this visit to Jerusalem, and consequently 
before his imprisonment. 

" The language ' I going (nopevofxevos) into Mace- 
donia, besought thee to abide still at Ephesus," did 
not form a permanent connection between Timothy 
and Ephesus. At the very greatest extent, the in- 
structions given in this letter were of a continuance 
only till Paul should come to him, (ew ipx ^ 1 ) 1 Tim. 
iv. 13 ; iii. 14. But it is certain that Timothy did 
not remain at Ephesus, till Paul passed on his way 
to Jerusalem. 

" The second epistle of Timothy will prove itself 
written by Paul when a prisoner at Rome ; and at 
least establishes the absence of the evangelist from 
his spiritual father, at the time it was written. But 
he was at Rome in the time of the first imprison- 
ment, as has been proved by his having been joined 
with Paul in the letters to the Collossians, Philippians 



52 EPflBCOPACY EXAMINED. 

and Philemon. Demas and Mark were also there 
in the first imprisonment, Col. iv. 10, 4, but absent 
at the writing of the second to Timothy. 2 Tim. 
iv. 10, 11, 

" It is therefore an error to suppose it to have 
been written before the epistle to the Colossians, 
Philippians, and Philemon, during the first impris- 
onment. Also in 2 Tim. iv. 20, Paul tells him, 
Erastus abode at Corinth ; but this needed not to 
have been told to Timothy, if Paul meant that Eras- 
tus abode at Corinth when he went to Jerusalem, 
and so to Rome, for Timothy was then with him, 
and must have known the circumstance, had it been 
so. In like manner he says, ibid, "Trophimus 
have I left at Miletum, sick." But Trophimus was 
not left at any place on the voyage to Jerusalem, 
for he was there and the occasion of the jealousies 
of the Jews. Acts xxi. 29. 

" These two facts, compared with this, which ap- 
pears in the epistle, that it was written by Paul a 
prisoner at Rome, afford sufficient certainty, that 
there was a second imprisonment when this letter 
was written. 

" But it by no means follows, that Timothy was 
at Ephesus when the second epistle was written. 
This ought not to be assumed, but shown. If Tim- 
othy was then at Ephesus, why should he have been 
told, ■ I have sent Tychicus to Ephesus V 2 Tim. 
iv. 12. He must have arrived at that place before 
the letter, and the fact could have been then known. 



2PISC02ACY EXAMINED. 58 

Also, Tychicus needed no introduction to Timothy. 
Had Timothy been at Ephesus, Paul would not 
have sent him to Troas, for articles he had left 
there. It appears more probable, that Timothy 
was, at the time the epistle was sent to him, at 
Troas, or in the neighborhood of that place. The 
salutations will not establish the destination of the 
epistle. Onesiphorus resided in Asia, but the par- 
ticular place of his abode is not known. He helped 
Paul both at Ephesus and Rome. Also Aquila, who 
had resided at Rome, at Corinth, at Ephesus, and 
again at Rome, was a native of Pontus, on the mar- 
gin of the Euxine. Trophimus, whom Paul had left 
at Miletum, was an Ephesian. Acts xxi. 29. Miletus 
was near Ephesus, and Timothy would have known 
the facts, unless Miletum in Crete was the place. 

"If Timothy was not at Ephesus when the second 
letter was written to him, there is no evidence of his 
being in that city, after Paul's first imprisonment. 
But if he had been at Ephesus, he must have then 
left it, the letter calling him to Rome, and the sa- 
cred records speak not of his return to that city. 
The second epistle assigns to Timothy no other du- 
ties than those proper to his general office of evan- 
gelist ; and bears no relation to a particular over- 
sight of any church or churches. 

" Some writers suppose that Paul, when he landed 
at Miletus on a subsequent voyage to Jerusalem, 
left Timothy with the elders of the church at Ephe- 
sus, " to govern them in his absence." But nothing 
5* 



54 EPISCOPACY EXAMINED* 

of the kind was spoken on the occasion ; and in- 
stead of a temporary absence, Paul assured the 
elders they should "see his face no more." In 
1 Tim. i. 3, it is not said, " when I went to Jerusa- 
lem," but expressly, " I besought thee to abide still 
at Ephesus, when I went into Macedonia" Also 
it has been asserted, that the apostle, having placed 
Timothy at Ephesus prior to his first imprisonment, 
" wrote both his epistles to Timothy while a prisoner 
at Rome." But Timothy was with Paul at Rome, 
during a part of the first imprisonment, for he is 
joined in the epistles to the Philippians, Colossians, 
and Philemon. Salutations also might have been 
expected in the first epistle to Timothy, had it been 
written from Rome, as in those to the Philippi- 
ans, Colossians, Philemon, and the Hebrews. He 
was indeed absent from Rome during a part of the 
time of the first imprisonment, but Paul expected his 
return, Heb. xiii. 23, and so far was he from hoping to 
come unto Timothy shortly, as expressed in 1 Tim. 
iii. 14, he promises, if Timothy come shortly to 
Rome, with him to visit the Hebrews. Also it 
seems strange, if Timothy had been at Ephesus 
when the epistle to the Ephesians was sent by Ty- 
chicus, Ephes. vi. 21, that no notice whatever should 
have been taken of the beloved youth. 

" Another hypothesis is, that Paul, when the Jews 
deterred him from sailing from Corinth, and he de- 
termined to go through Macedonia to Jerusalem, 
besought Timothy to abide still at Ephesus; to 



EPISCOPACY EXAMINED* 55 

which, when Timothy agreed, he went forward to 
Troas, with Aristarchus and the rest ; and whilst 
waiting there for Paul, Timothy received the first 
epistle from the apostle, written in Macedonia. 
But this is a departure from the correct meaning of 
the passage, which is that Paul besought Timothy 
rrpotrnsivai to continue or remain at the place where 
Timothy was at the time he was thus entreated. 
Those who went before with Timothy to Troas are 
represented to have accompanied Paul into Asia, 
Acts xx. 4, 5. This circumstance renders it an 
improbable supposition, that Paul should write so 
long and important a letter to his fellow traveller, 
whom he must overtake in a few days ; and wholly 
unaccountable, that he should say in the letter, 
1 Tim. iii. 14, 15, " these things write I unto 
you, hoping to come unto thee shortly ; but if I 
tarry long," &c. That Paul should have thus pur- 
posed to come to Timothy unto Ephesus, but really at 
Troas ; and in a few weeks afterwards, without any 
apparent cause for a change of views, should have 
said at Miletus to the elders of the church of Ephe- 
sus, " I know that ye all shall see my face no more," 
Acts xx. 25, exhibits a fluctuation approximating 
versatility. If Timothy was on this occasion left 
with the officers of the church at Ephesus, and es- 
pecially, if he was to be thenceforth their diocesan 
bishop, it is strange that not a word of either of 
those circumstances should have been mentioned to 
those elders. But so far was the apostle from 
mentioning their subordination unto, or support of 



56 EPISCOPACY EXAMINED. 

the authority of young Timothy, that he enjoins 
them ; " take heed unto yourselves, and to all the 
flock over which the Holy Ghost hath made you 
rrrioKOTTovs bishops, to feed the church of God" &,c. 
But as not a word is said of leaving Timothy at 
Miletus, so it is improbable that he should have 
parted from Paul there, because he appears to have 
been of the company of the apostle, when he arriv- 
ed at Rome, where he is joined with him in the let- 
ters which have been mentioned. 

u Others allege, that Paul visited Ephesus after 
his first imprisonment, left Timothy there, went into 
Macedonia, and from thence wrote to him his first 
letter. They build upon the circumstances, that 
whilst at Rome he had written to Philemon to pre- 
pare him lodgings at Colosse ; and that he had told 
the Philippians, by letter, he trusted he should 
shortly come to them. 

" This opinion is much more respectable than 
either of the former ; and although several of the 
fathers have positively asserted what is incompatible 
with it, that Paul went into Spain, after his first 
imprisonment, according to his purpose expressed 
Rom. xv. 28, yet, however credible these holy men 
were, their conjectures deserve often but little re- 
gard. That Paul was at Philippi after his impri- 
sonment is probable, because he left Erastus at 
Corinth, 2 Tim. iv. 20. Also he may have been 
at Colosse, if he left Trophimus at Miletus ; but the 
place was Miletum. ibid. He entertained a purpose 
subsequent to those, of visiting Judea with Timothy. 



EPISCOPACY EXAMINED. 57 

Heb. xiii. 23. This may have been first accom- 
plished, and Timothy left in the neighborhood of 
Troas, where he remained till the second epistle was 
sent to him. But if these purposes were effectua- 
ted, which is a matter of uncertainty, there is not a 
word to prove even an intention to visit Ephesus. 
The letter to the Ephesians neither mentions Timo- 
thy, nor any coming of Paul. But Tychicus, a 
faithful minister of the Lord, and companion of the 
apostle, was named as sent to them. Ephes. vi. 21. 
To the Ephesians Paul had said, that he knew they 
should " see his face no more," and it is no where 
shown that he did. The supposition that neverthe- 
less Paul afterwards went to Ephesus with Timothy, 
left him there, with the request to tarry till he should 
return to him, and then went into Macedonia, and 
wrote his first epistle to Timothy, is entirely gratu- 
itous, and without the least reason appearing in any 
exigencies of the Ephesian church ; which had had 
three years of Paul's labors, and had been afterwards 
long blessed with the regular administration of the 
ordinances by pastors of their own, besides help 
from Tychicus, and perhaps others. 

* If Paul constituted Timothy bishop of Ephesus, 
it is an affirmative, and ought to be proved. But 
Paul tells the presbyters of Ephesus at Miletus, that 
the Holy Ghost had made them bishops (emcicoirovs) 
of that church. Those elders had previously re- 
ceived the powers which were necessary to ordain- 
ing others ; on Timothy a similar presbytery laid 



Ob EPISCOPACY EXAMINED. 

their hands at his ordination. If this circumstance 
will not show that a presbytery could have ordain- 
ed an evangelist, an apostle not being present, be- 
cause evangelists were extraordinary officers of a 
higher grade ; yet it must prove that a presbytery 
have some power to ordain. They were the high- 
est fixed officers in a church, and the power of or- 
dination was necessary to their succession. They 
could not have been appointed coadjutors to Timo- 
thy, in the ordination of themselves. And it does 
not appear they were ordained before the riot, when 
he was left at Ephesus. If thus there were no offi- 
cers in that church when Paul left it, the direction 
to Timothy, who was an evangelist, to ordain bish- 
ops, that is, elders in Ephesus, was t6 do no more 
than his duty ; which, when accomplished in any 
church, gave such bishops or elders, power to con- 
tinue the succession. If the presbyters of particu- 
lar churches had not the power of ordination, there 
has been no succession in the church of Christ 
since the deaths of the apostles and evangelists ; 
for their offices expired with them, and there were 
no officers of a higher order. The office of Tim- 
othy was given to him prior to his visiting Ephesus. 
The duty assigned him was afterwards declared to 
be the work of an evangelist. 2 Tim. iv. 5. His 
appointment to Ephesus was temporary, being limit- 
ed, at the farthest, to the time when Paul should 
come to him ; but an earlier period of its termina- 
tion was evidently left to his discretion, which ho 



EPISCOPACY EXAMINED, 59 

exercised by coming to Paul into Macedonia. Thus 
there was a disruption of the connection, if any had 
been fixed ; but none such was intended ; the epis- 
tle was neither a commission, nor an ordination, but 
a mere letter of instruction, directing him in the dis- 
charge of his high and important office of evange- 
list. 

w If Timothy returned to Ephesus from Rome, 
which is not recorded in the Scriptures, and died 
there, it will not establish that he ever exercised, or 
had any other office, than that of an evangelist."* 

5. The claim that Timothy was bishop of Ephe- 
sus, is one that must be made out by Episcopalians 
from the New Testament. But this claim has not 
been made out, nor can it ever be. 

6. The epistle to the Ephesians shows further, 
that at the time of writing that, there was no such 
bishop at Ephesus. Though the apostle herein 
gives the church various instructions about the rela- 
tions which existed, there is not the slightest hint 
that Timothy was there ; nor is there the least inti- 
mation that any such officer ever had been, or ever 
would be, set over them. 

Now, if it cannot be made out, that Timothy was 
bishop of Ephesus ; if the point is not established 
beyond a doubt, then in reading Paul's charge to 
the elders at Miletus, we are to regard them as in- 
trusted with the care of the church at Ephesus. It 
is not necessary to our argument to inquire whether 
* Dr. Wilson. 



60 EPISCOPACY EXAMINED. ' 

they were ruling elders, or presbyters, ordained to 
preach as well as to rule. All that is incumbent 
on us, is to show that the New Testament does not 
warrant the assumption, that they were subject to a 
diocesan bishop. We affirm, therefore, simply, that 
Paul addressed them as intrusted with the spiritual 
instruction and government of the church at Ephe- 
sus, without any reference whatever to any person, 
either then or afterwards placed over them, as supe- 
rior in ministerial rights and powers. And this 
point is conclusively established by two additional 
considerations ; first, that they are expressly called 
bishops, iTTiaxo-ovs, themselves, a most remarkable 
appellation, i^ the apostle meant to have them under- 
stand that they were to be under the administration 
of another bishop of superior ministerial powers and 
rights ; and secondly, that they are expressly in- 
trusted with the whole spiritual charge of the church, 
iroinaivav rrjv sKK\r)<riav k. t. >. But every thing in this 
case is fully met by the supposition, that they were 
invested with the simple power of ruling. Dr. On- 
derdonk himself admits that the word translated 
"feed," noifimiveiw, may be rendered to "rule." p. 37. 
And if this point be conceded, the idea that they 
were elders in the Presbyterian sense, is all that can 
be proved from the passage. It is essential to the 
argument of Episcopalians, that they should be able 
to make out that these elders not only ruled, but 
also preached the gospel, and performed the other 
functions of their " second order" of clergy. 



EPISCOPACY EXAMINED. (51 

Let us now gather the results of our investiga- 
tion, and dispose of the case of Timothy. We have 
shown, that he was not an apostle. We have fur- 
ther shown, that he was not bishop of Ephesus. We 
have thus destroyed the claim of the permanency of 
the apostolic office, so far as Timothy is concerned. 
And we now insist, that the readers of the New 
Testament, they who wish to defend Episcopacy by 
<; Scripture," should read the two epistles to Timo- 
thy, without the vain and illusory supposition, that 
he was bishop of Ephesus. Agreeing with Dr. 
Onderdonk, that this point must be settled by the 
New Testament, and that " no argument is worth 
taking into the account which has not a palpable hear- 
ing on the clear and naked topic, — the scriptural 
evidence of Episcopacy" (p. 3) we now insist that 
these epistles should be read without being inter- 
preted by the unsupported position, that Timothy 
was the permanent bishop of Ephesus. We insist, 
moreover, that that supposition shall not be admitted 
to influence the interpretation. With this matter 
clear before us, how stands the case in these two 
epistles ? We answer, thus : — 

(1.) Timothy was sent to Ephesus for a special 
purpose, — to allay contentions, and prevent the 
spreading of false doctrine. 1 Tim. i. 3. (2.) This 
was to be temporary, 1 Tim. i. 3. Comp. iii. 14, 15 ; 
iv. 13. (3.) He was intrusted with the right of or- 
dination, as all ministers of the gospel are, and with 
the authority of government. 1 Tim. i. 3 : v. 19 — 
6 



62 EPISCOPACY EXAMINED. 

21 ; v. 22. 2 Tim. ii. 2. (4.) Laying out of view 
the gratuitous supposition that he was bishop of Eph- 
esus, the charge given to Timothy was just such a 
one as would be given to any minister of the gospel 
authorized to preach, to ordain, to administer the 
ordinances of the church, and its discipline. It is just 
such as is given now to men who hold to the doc- 
trine of ministerial parity. The " charges " which 
are given to Presbyterian and Congregational min- 
isters at ordination, are almost uniformly couched 
in the same language which is used by Paul, in ad- 
dressing Timothy ; nor is there any thing in those 
epistles which may not be, and which is not, in fact, 
often addressed to ministers on such occasions. 
With just as much propriety might some antiqua- 
rian, hereafter, some future advocate for Episcopacy, 
collect together the charges now given to ministers, 
and appeal to them as proof that the churches in 
New-England, and among Presbyterians, were Epis- 
copal, as to appeal now to the epistles to Timothy, 
to prove his office as a prelate. (5.) The epistles 
themselves contain evidence of the falsehood of the 
supposition, that there was an order of men superior 
to the presbyters in " ministerial powers and rights." 
There are but two orders of ministers spoken of, or 
alluded to, in the epistles, — bishops and deacons. 
There is not the slightest allusion to any other order. 
We call the attention of our readers here, to an em- 
phatic remark of Dr. Onderdonk, p. 12: "All that 
we read in the New Testament concerning 6 bishops,' 



EPISCOPACY EXAMINED. 63 

is to be regarded as pertaining to the ( middle 
grade ;' " i. e. nothing in these epistles or elsewhere, 
where this term is used, has any reference to a rank 
of ministers superior " in ministerial powers and 
rights." The case here, then, by the supposition 
of the Episcopalians, is this. Two epistles are ad- 
dressed by an apostle to a successor of the apostles, 
designated as such, to retain and perpetuate the same 
rank and powers. Those epistles are designed to 
instruct him in the organization and government 
of the churches. They contain ample information, 
and somewhat protracted discussions on the follow- 
ing topics : The office of a presbyter. The quali- 
fications for that office. The office of the deacons. 
The qualifications for that office. The qualifications 
of deacon's wives. 1 Tim. iii. The proper disci- 
pline of an elder. The qualifications of those who 
were to be admitted to the office of deaconesses. 
1 Tim. v. The duties of masters and servants. 1 Tim. 
vi. The duties of laymen. 1 Tim. ii. 8. And 
of Christian females. 1 Tim. ii. 9 — 11. Nay, they 
contain directions about the apostle's cloak, and his 
parchments ; (2 Tim. iv. 13) but from the beginning 
to the end, not one single syllable respecting^ the 
existence of a grade of officers in the church supe- 
rior "in ministerial rights and powers ;" not a word 
about their qualifications, of the mode of ordaining, 
or consecrating them, or of Timothy's fraternal in- 
tercourse with his brother prelates ; nothing about 
the subjection of the priesthood to them, or of their 



64 EPISCOPACY EXAMINED. 

peculiar functions of confirmation, and superintend- 
ence. In one word, taking these epistles by them- 
selves, no man would dream that there were any 
such officers in existence. We ask now, whether 
any candid reader of the New Testament can be- 
lieve that there were any such officers ; and that 
two epistles could have been written in these cir- 
cumstances, without the slightest allusion to their 
existence or powers ? " Credat Judceus Apella." 
We ask whether there can be found now among all 
the charges which Episcopal bishops have given to 
their clergy, any two in which there shall not also 
be found some allusion to the " primitive and apos- 
tolic order " of bishops in the churches ? It remains 
for our eyes to be blessed with the sight of one 
Episcopal charge, reminding us in this respect of the 
charges of Paul to Timothy. 

We now take our leave of the case of Timothy. 
The case of Titus, the next in order, pp. 26, 27, wo 
must despatch in fewer words. The argument 
of Dr. Onderdonk, in defence of the claim respect- 
ing Titus, does not vary materially from that used 
in reference to Timothy, p. 26. It is, that he was 
left in Crete to ordain elders in every city, and that 
the powers of " ordination, admonition, and rejec- 
tion, are all committed to Titus personally." Titus 
i. 6 — 9 ; iii. 10. The only point here which requires 
a moment's examination, in addition to what we 
have said on the case of Timothy, is the purpose for 
which he was left at Crete. Titus i. 5. The claim 



EPISCOPACY EXAMINED. (35 

of the Episcopalians here is, that this indicates such 
a perseverance in the " distinction between elders 
and a grade superior to them," as to prove that it 
was "to be a permanent arrangement." p. 23. In 
other words, Titus was to be a permanent bishop 
of Crete, superior to the elders " in ministerial rights 
and powers." This claim it is necessary for them 
to establish from the New Testament. If there are 
any intimations that it was not designed to be per- 
manent, they will be fatal to their argument. We 
affirm, then, in opposition to this claim, that the case 
is fully met by the supposition that "Titus was an 
extraordinary officer, like Timothy, at Ephesus, ap- 
pointed for a specific purpose. 1. The appointment 
itself looks as if this \v 7 as the design. Paul had 
himself commenced a work there, which from some 
cause he was unable to complete. That work he 
left Titus to finish. As it cannot be pretended, that 
Paul had any purpose of becoming the permanent 
bishop of Crete ; so it cannot be pretended, that Ti- 
tus' being left to complete what Paul had begun, is 
proof that Paul expected that Titus would be per- 
manent bishop. An appointment to complete a work 
which is begun by another, when the original de- 
signer did not contemplate a permanent employment, 
cannot surely be adduced in proof of a permanent 
office. If I am employed to complete an edifice 
which is commenced, it does not suppose that I am 
to labor at it all my life ; still less, that I am to have 
successors in the undertaking. We presume that 
6* 



66 EPIECOPACY EXAMINED. 

this passage, to most unbiassed minds, would imply 
that Paul expected Titus, after having completed what 
he had left him to do, should leave the island of Crete, 
and accompany him in his travels. 2. That 
this was the fact ; that he had no expectation 
that Titus would be a 'permanent bishop of Crete, 
superior in " ministerial rights and powers," is per- 
fectly apparent from the direction in this same epis- 
tle, ch. iii. 12. " When I shall send Artemas unto 
thee, or Tychicus, he diligent to come unto me at 
Nicopolis" Here we find conclusive proof, that the 
arrangement respecting Titus in Crete was a tem- 
porary arrangement. To suppose the contrary, is 
to maintain a position in the very face of the direc- 
tions of the apostle. Every thing in the case shows, 
that he was an extraordinary officer, appointed for 
a specific purpose ; and that when that work was 
effected, which the apostle supposed icould he soon, 
he was to resume his station as the travelling com- 
panion and fellow laborer of the apostle. 3. That 
this was the general character of Titus ; that he was 
so regarded by Paul, as his companion, and very 
valuable to him in his work, is further apparent from 
2 Cor. ii. 12, 13 ; vii. 6 — 13. In the former pas- 
sage he says, that he expected to meet him at Troas, 
and intimates that his presence and help were very 
necessary for him. " I had no rest in my spirit, 
because I found not Titus my brother." In the lat- 
ter place, (2 Cor. vii. 6 — 13) we find him the com- 
panion of the apostle Paul, in Philippi. Again, 



EPISCOPACY EXAMINED. 67 

(2 Cor. xii. 18) we find him employed on a special 
embassy to the church in Corinth, in respect to the 
collection for the poor saints at Jerusalem. Comp. 
Rom. xv. 26. And again we find him on a mission 
to Dahnatia, 2 Tim. iv. 10. Assuredly these vari- 
ous migrations and employments do not appear as 
if he was designed by the apostle as the permanent 
bishop of Crete. 4. It is to be presumed that Titus 
regarded the apostolic mandate ; (Titus hi. 12;) that 
he left Crete in accordance with Paul's request ; 
and as there is no intimation that he returned, as 
the New Testament throws no light on that point, 
as indeed there is not the slightest proof any where, 
that he died there, we come to the conclusion that 
he was employed for a temporary purpose, and that 
having accomplished it, he resumed his situation as 
the companion of Paul. Comp. Gal. ii. 1. It 
must be admitted, on all hands, that the Episcopalian 
cannot prove the contrary. Since, moreover, our 
supposition meets all the circumstances of the case as 
well as his, and we are able to show that this was 
the general character of the labors of Titus, we 
shall dismiss his case also. 

The last argument of Dr. Onderdonk is derived 
from the epistles to the seven churches of Asia. 
Rev. ii. iii. This argument is embodied in the fol- 
lowing position : is Each of those churches is address- 
ed, not through its clergy at large, but through its 
' angel,' or chief officer ; this alone is a very strong 
argument against parity in favor of Episcopacy." 



68 EPISCOPACY EXAMINED. 

"One of those churches is Ephesus ; and when we 
read concerning its angel, fc thou hast tried them 
which say they are apostles, and are not, and hast 
found them liars,' do we require further evidence 
that what Timothy, the chief officer there, was in 
the year 65, in regard to the supreme right of disci- 
pline over the clergy, the same was its chief officer 
when this book was written, in 96 ? " The singular 
number, it is added, is used emphatically in the 
address to each of the angels, and " the individual 
called ' the angel,' is, in each case, identified with 
his church, and his church with him.' 5 pp. 27, 28. 
This is the argument ; and this is the whole of it. 
We have sought diligently to see its bearing ; but 
our labor, in doing it, has not been crowned with 
very flattering success. We can see, indeed, that 
those churches were addressed through their min- 
isters, or pastors, called " angels ; " but it requires 
more penetration than we profess to have, to discover 
how this bears on the precise point, that there is an 
order of men superior to others " in ministerial rights 
and powers." Such an argument can be founded 
only on the following assumptions : 1. That there 
was an inferior body of clergymen, called here 
" clergy at large." Assuming this point, it would 
not be difficult to make out an argument from the 
address "to the angel." But this is a point to be 
proved, not to be assumed. We would respectfully 
ask the writer of this tract, where he finds an inti- 
mation of the existence of an order of " clergy at 



EPISCOPACY EXAMINED. 69 

large" in these churches. In the epistles them- 
selves, there is not the slightest hint of the existence 
of any such personage distinct from "the angels." 
Nay, the very style of address is strong presumption 
that there were not any such inferior clergymen. 
The only mention which occurs, is of the angel and 
the church. We hear nothing of an intermediate 
order ; nothing of any supremacy of " the angel'' 
over " the clergy at large ; " not the least intimation 
of any duty to be performed by the supposed prela- 
tical " angel," towards the inferior presbyters. Why 
is a reference to them omitted, if they had any exist- 
ence 1 Is it customary in addressing " bishops " 
now, to omit all reference to their duties over the 
inferior " clergy at large ?" This is a point of too 
much consequence to be left now so unguarded ; and 
accordingly the rights and duties of the order, supe- 
rior " in ministerial rights and powers," are sedu- 
lously marked out and inculcated.* 2. It must be 
assumed, in this argument, that there were in each 
of those cities more churches than one ; that there 
was a circle, or confederation of churches, that 
would answer to the modern notion of a diocese, 
over which " the clergy at large " of inferior "mi- 
nisterial rights and powers," might exercise a modi- 
fied jurisdiction. If this is not assumed, the argument 
has no force ; since if there were but one church in 

* We of course lay out of view, here, the case of the " elders 
at Ephesus, as being already disposed of; and as not being 
relevant to Dr. O's. argument, since that they were "clergy 
at large," is to be 'proved, not assumed. 



70 EPISCOPACY EXAMINED, 

each of those cities, the "angel" was not a bishop 
in the Episcopal sense, but a pastor in the ordinary 
acceptation. Now this is a point, which, in an ar- 
gument like this, should not be assumed. It should 
be. proved, or at least rendered highly probable from 
the New Testament. But there is not the slightest 
hint of any such divided and scattered diocesan or- 
ganization. In each instance, the church is addressed 
as one, and undivided. " The angel of the church" 
— not the churches, — "of Ephesus." Rev. ii. 1. 
" The angel of the church in Smyrna ;" ii. 8 : " the 
angel of the church at Thyatira ;" ii. 18 : the angel 
of the church in Sardis ;" iii. 1, etc. In every in- 
stance the address is uniform. The point of inquiry 
now is, whether in this address the Saviour meant 
to intimate that there was & plurality of churches, an 
ecclesiastical, diocesan organization ? This is a 
point for Episcopalians to prove, not to assume. 
Light may be thrown on it by comparing it with 
other places where a church is spoken of. The pre- 
sumption is directly against the Episcopalian. It is, 
that the apostles would not organize separate churches 
in a single city ; and that if it were done, they would 
be specified as the churches. Accordingly, we learn 
that the apostle organized " a church " at Corinth. 
1 Cor. i. 1, 2. Thus, also, at Antioch. Acts xiii. 
1. Thus, also, at Laodicea. Col. iv. 16. And in 
the epistle to one of the very churches under consi- 
deration, that at Ephesus, it is mentioned not as 
the churches of Ephesus, but as the church Acts xx» 



EPISCOPACY EXAMINED. 71 

28. When Paul addressed this same cnurch in an 
epistle, it was directed, not to the churches, but to the 
saints at Ephesus. Eph. i. 1. But where there 
were distinct churches organized, there is a specific 
mention of the fact' of the plurality. They are 
mentioned as being many. Thus, Acts xv. 41 : 
" Paul went through Syria confirming (i. e. strength- 
ening, establishing,) the churches." Rom. xvi. 4 : 
" the churches of the Gentiles." 1 Cor. xvi. 1 ; "the 
churches of Galatia." 19 : "the churches of Asia. " 
2 Cor. viii. 1 : " the churches in Macedonia." See 
also, 2 Cor. viii. 19, 23; xi. 8 ; Gal. i. 22; Rev. 
i. 4. Now if it is neither proved that there was a 
body of " clergy at large, " nor that there were 
separate churches, in each of those cities ; we ask 
What is the force of the argument of Dr. Onderdonk 
from this case ? How does it bear on the point at 
issue? What has it to do with the subject? 

With one or two additional remarks, we shall 
dismiss this point. The first is, that it cannot be 
argued from the term angel, given to those ministers, 
that they were Episcopal bishops. That term, as 
is well known, has no such exclusive applicability 
to a prelate. It is no where else applied to the 
ministers of religion; and its original signification, 
" a messenger," or its usual application to celestial 
spirits, has no special adaptedness to an Episcopal 
bishop. An ordinary pastor, — a messenger sent 
from God ; a spiritual guide, and friend of the church, 
will as fully express its sense, as the application to 



72 EPISCOPACY EXAMINED. 

a prelate. Without invidiousness, we may observe, 
that prelates have not usually evinced any such 
extraordinary sanctity, or devotion, as to appropri- 
ate this title to themselves alone by prescriptive 
right. Our other remark is, that the supposition that 
these angels were pastors of the churches, presby- 
ters on a parity with each other, and with all others, 
will fully meet every thing which is said of them in 
the book of Revelation. This supposition, too, will 
meet the addresses made to them, better than the 
assumption that they were prelates. Their union, 
as Dr. Onderdonk remarks, to the church, is intimate. 
" The angel is in each case identified with his church, 
and his church with him." Now to which does this 
remark best apply ; to the tender, intimate, endear- 
ing relation of a pastor with his people ; to the blend- 
ing of their feelings, interests, and destiny, when he 
is with them continually ; when he meets them each 
week in the sanctuary ; when he administers to them 
the bread of life ; goes into their abodes when they 
are afflicted, and attends their kindred to the grave ? 
or does it best apply to the union subsisting between 
the people of an extended diocese, — to the formal, 
unfrequent, and, in many instances, stately and pom- 
pous visitations of a diocesan bishop ; to the kind of 
connection formed between a people scattered into 
many churches, who are visited at intervals of a 
year, or more, by one claiming " a superiority in 
ministerial rights and powers," robed in lawn, and 
perhaps with the crosier and mitre, as emblematical 



EPISCOPACY EXAMINED. 73 

of office, state, and power ; who mu^t be a stranger 
to the ten thousand tender ties of endearment, which 
bind as one the hearts of a pastor and his people ? 
To our minds, it seems clear that the account which 
Dr. Onderdonk has given of the "identity" of the 
angel and the church, applies to the former, and not 
to the latter. It speaks the sentiments of our heart, 
as respects the union of a pastor and people. And 
while we would not allow ourselves to speak with 
disrespect of the Episcopal office, we still feel that 
the language of the Saviour, by the mild and gentle 
John, to the churches of Asia, breathes far more of 
the endearing " identity" of the pastoral relation, 
than it does of the comparatively cold, and distant 
functions of one, who, in all other lands but this, has 
been invested with his office by the imposing cere- 
mony of enthroning, and who was borne, less as 
badges of affection than of authority, the crosier and 
the mitre. 

We have now gone entirely through with the 
argument of Dr. Onderdonk, in proof that there is 
an order of men superior " in ministerial rank and 
powers." We have intended to do justice to his 
proofs, and we have presented the whole of them. 

Our readers have all that Episcopalians rely on 
from the scriptures, in vindication of the existence 
of such an order of men. It will be remembered 
that the burden of proof lies on them. They advance 
a claim which is indispensable to the existence of 
their ecclesiastical polity. These are the arguments 
" ' 1 



74 EPISCOPACY EXAMINED. 

on which they rely. Whether their arguments 
justify the language of assumption which we some- 
times hear ; whether they are such as to render 
appropriate the description of all people but the 
members of Episcopal churches, as left to " the 
uncovenanted mercies of God ;"* whether they are 
such as to prompt, legitimately, to a very frequent 
reference to " the primitive and apostolic order" of 
the ministry ; or to the modest use of the term 
* the church," with an exclusive reference to them- 
selves, must now be left to the judgment of our 
readers. 

It was our intention, originally, to have gone 
somewhat at length into a defense of the scripture 
doctrine of ministerial parity. But the unexpected 
length of our article admonishes us to close. We 
are the less dissatisfied with this admonition, because 
we conceive the point already made out. If Episco- 
palians, cannot make good their claims in reference 

* T vYe do not charge Dr. Onderdonk with having any such 
views and feelings. We have great pleasure in recording his 
dissent from the use of such language., and from such conse- 
quences, p 6. "An apparently formidable, yet extraneous 
difficulty, often raised, is, that Episcopal claims unchurch all 
non-Episcopal denominations. By the present writer this 
consequence is not allowed." We simply state this, with high 
gratification. We are happy also that we are not called upon 
to reconcile the admission with the claim set up in this tract, 
that "the authority of Episcopacy is permanent, down to the 
present age of the world ;" (p. 40.) that the obligation of Chris- 
tians to support bishops, i. e. to conform to Episcopacy, is not 
ended ; (p. 40.) that of " any two ministries now existing, ihe 
former (Episcopacy) is obligatory, to the exclusion of the lat- 
ter ;" (parity, p. 39) and that " the position cannot be evaded, 
that Episcopacy is permanently binding 'even to the end of 
the world. 5 "p. 39.- 



EPISCOPACY EXAMINED. 75 

to their bishop, it follows of course that ministers 
are on an equalit}^. The whole argument is con- 
centrated in their claim. We take our stand here. 
It is admitted on all hands, that there is some- 
where in the church a right to ordain. Episcopa- 
lians, with singular boldness, in not a few instances 
with professed, and in all with real exclusiveness, 
maintain that this power lies only in the bishop. 
They advance a claim to certain rights and powers ; 
and if that claim is not made out, the argument is at 
an end. The power of ordination must remain 
with those over whom they have set up the power 
of jurisdiction and control. This claim, as we have 
seen, is not made out. If from the authority of the 
New Testament, they cannot succeed in dividing the 
ministers of religion into various ranks and orders, 
it follows that the clergy remain on an equality. 

On this point, also, they are compelled, as we 
conceive, to admit the whole of our argument. So 
manifest is it, that the sacred writers knew of no such 
distinction ; that they regarded all ministers of the 
gospel as on a level ; that they used the same name 
in describing the functions of all ; that they address- 
ed all as having the same Episcopal, or pastoral 
supervision, that the Episcopalians, after no small 
reluctance, are compelled at last to admit it. They 
are driven to the conclusion that the term bishop 
in the New Testament, does not in a single instance 
designate any such officer, as now claims exclu- 
sively that title. Thus Dr. Onderdonk says, that 



76 EPISCOPACY EXAMINED. 

" that name (bishop) is there, (i. e. in the New Testa- 
ment,) given to the middle order or presbyters ; and 
all that we read in the New Testament concerning 
1 bishops? (including of course the words ' overseers? 
and 'oversight? which have the same derivation,) is to 
be regarded as pertaining to that middle grade. It 
was after the apostolic age that the name ' bishop' 
was taken from the second order, and appropriated 
to the first." p. 12. This admission we regard as of 
inestimable value. So we believe ; and so we 
teach. We insist, therefore, that the name bishop 
should be restored to its primitive standing. If men 
lay claim to a higher rank than is properly express- 
ed in the New Testament by this word, we insist that 
they should assume the name apostles. As they 
regard themselves as the successors of the apostles ; 
as they claim that Timothy, Titus, Andronicus, 
Junia, were called apostles, why should not the 
name be retained ? The Christian community could 
then better appreciate the force of their claims, and 
understand the nature of the argument. We ven- 
ture to say, that if the name " apostles" were as- 
sumed by those who claim that they are their suc- 
cessors, Episcopacy would be soon " shorn of its 
beams," and that the Christian world would disabuse 
itself of the belief in the scriptural authority of any 
such class of men. We admit that if u the thing 
sought" (p. 12.) were to be found in the Scriptures, 
we would not engage in a controversy about the 
mere name. But we maintain that the fact here 



EPISCOPACY EXAMINED. 77 

conceded is strong presumptive proof that " the things 
sought" is not there. The name, therefore, is to he 
given up ; that is conceded by Episcopalians, that 
the name bishop does not any where in the New Tes- 
tament designate any such class of men as are now 
clothed with the Episcopal office. 

We remark now, that the thing itself is practi- 
cally abandoned by Episcopalians, themselves. If 
other denominations can be true churches, (see the 
remark on p. 6, that the Episcopal claims do not 
" unchurch all non-Episcopal denominations,") then 
their ministers can be true ministers, and their ordi- 
nances valid ordinances. Their ministers may be 
ordained without the imposition of the hands of " a 
bishop ;" and thus the whole claim is abandoned. 
For what constitutes " non-Episcopal denomina- 
tions" churches, unless they have a valid ministry, 
and valid ordinances ? Still further. It is probably 
known to our readers, that even ordination is never 
performed in the Episcopal church by the bishop 
alone. In the " Form and manner of Ordering 
Priests," the following direction is given. " The 
bishop with the priests [presbyters] present, shall lay 
their hands severally upon the head of every one 
that receiveth the order of priesthood ; the receivers 
humbly kneeling, and the bishop saying : Receive 
the Holy Ghost, for the office and work of a priest 
in the church of God now committed unto thee by 
the imposition of our hands" etc. We know that 
there is among them a difference of opinion about 
7* 



78 EPISCOPACY EXAMINED. 

the reason why this is done. One portion regard 
the bishop as the only source of authority.* The 
other suppose that the presence and act of the 
presbyters express the assent and confidence of the 
churches, and that it is essential to a valid ordi- 
nation. But, which ever opinion is maintained, it 
is, in fact, a Presbyterian ordination. If not, it is 
an unmeaning and idle ceremony ; and the pre- 
sence of the presbyters is mere pageantry and 
pomp. 

We have now passed through the argument. 
Could we enter farther into it, we could prove, we 
think, 'positively, that there were no ministers in the 
apostolic churches, superior to presbyters " in min- 
isterial powers and rights ;" and that a presbytery 
did actually engage in an ordination, and even in 
the case of Timothy. f But our argument does not 
require it, nor have w r e room. We have examined 
the whole of the claims of Episcopalians, derived 
from the New Testament. Our readers will now 
judge of the validity of those claims. We close, as 
Dr. Onderdonk began, by saying, that if the claim 
is not made out on scriptural authority, it has no 
force, or binding obligation on mankind. 

Who can resist the impression, that if the New 

Testament had been the only authority appealed to 

in other times, Episcopacy would. long since have 

ceased to urge its claims, and have sunk away with 

* Hooker's Eccl. Pol. book vii. § 6. 

1 1 Tim. iv. 14. 



EPISCOPACY EXAMINED- 79 

other dynasties and dominations, from the notice of 
mankind ? On the basis which we have now exa- 
mined, this vast superstructure, this system which 
has heretofore spead over the entire Christian world, 
this system which, in some periods at least, has ad- 
vanced most arrogant claims, has been reared. The 
world, for ages, has been called to submit to various 
modifications of the Episcopal power. The world, 
with the single exceptions of the Waldenses and 
Albigenses, did for ages submit to its authority. 
The prelatical domination rose on the ruins of the 
liberties of cities, states, and nations, till all the 
power of the Christian world was concentrated in 
the hands of one man, — " the servant of the servants 
of God /" The exercise of that power in his hands 
is well known. Equally arrogant have been its 
claims in other modifications. The authority has 
been deemed necessary for the suppression of divi- 
sions and heresies. " The prelates," says Milton, 
"as they would have it thought, are the only mauls of 
schism." That power was felt in the days when 
puritan piety rose to bless mankind, and to advance 
just notions of civil and religious liberty. Streams 
of blood have flowed, and tears of anguish have 
been shed, and thousands of holy men have been 
doomed to poverty, and want, and imprisonment, 
and tears, as the result of those claims to supremacy 
and validity in the church of God. It may surprise 
our readers, to learn, that all the authority from the 
Bible which could be adduced in favor of these enor- 



80 EPISCOPACY EXAMINED. 

mous claims, has now been submitted to their obser- 
vation. And we cannot repress the melancholy 
emotions of our hearts, at the thought that such 
power has been claimed, and such domination exer- 
cised by man, on so slender authority as this ! 

We have little love for controversy ; — we have 
none for denunciation. We have no war to wage 
with Episcopacy. We know, we deeply feel, that 
much may be said in favor of it, apart from the 
claim which has been set up for its authority from 
the New Testament. Its past history, in some re- 
spects, makes us weep ; in others, it is the source of 
sincere rejoicing and praise. We cannot forget, 
indeed, its assumptions of power, or hide from our 
eyes the days of the Papacy, when it clothed in 
sackcloth the Christian world. We can forget the 
days, not few, or unimportant, in its history, when 
even as a part of the Protestant religion, it has 
brought "a numb and chill stupidity of soul, an in- 
active blindness of mind, upon the people, by its 
leaden doctrine ;" we cannot forget " the frozen 
captivity" of the church, " in the bondage of pre- 
lates ;"* nor can we remove from our remembrance 
the sufferings of the puritans, and the bloody scenes 
in Scotland. But we do not charge this on the 
Episcopacy of our times. We do not believe that 
it is essential to its existence. We do not believe 
that it is its inevitable tendency. With more grate- 
ful feelings, we recall other events of its history. 
* Milton. 



EPISCOPACY EXAMINED. Q\ 

We associate it with the brightest and happiest days 
of religion, and liberty, and literature, and law. 
We remember that it was under the Episcopacy 
that the church in England took its firm stand 
against the papacy ; and that this was its form when 
Zion rose to light, and splendor, from the dark night 
of ages. We remember the name of Cranmer, — 
Cranmer first, in many respects, among the reform- 
ers ; that it it was by his steady and unerring hand, 
that under God the pure church of the Saviour was 
conducted through the agitating and distressing 
times of Henry VIII. We remember that God 
watched over that wonderful man ; that He gave 
this distinguished prelate access to the heart of one 
of the most capricious, cruel, inexorable, blood- 
thirsty, and licentious monarchs that has disgraced 
the world ; that God, for the sake of Cranmer, and 
his church, conducted Henry as " by a hook in the 
nose," and made him faithful to the archbishop of 
Canterbury, when faithful to none else ; so that, per- 
haps, the only redeeming trait in the character of 
Henry, is his fidelity to this first British prelate un- 
der the reformation.* The world will not soon for- 
* It may be proper here to remark, that Cranmer by no 
means entertained the modern views of the scriptural author- 
ity of bishops. He would not have coincided with the claims 
of the tract which is now passing under our review. He 
maintained "that the appointment to spiritual offices belongs 
indifferently to bishops, to princes, or to the people, according 
to the pressure of existing circumstances. He affirmed the 
original identity of bishops and presbyters; and contended 
that nothing more than mere election, or appointment, is es- 
sential to the sacerdotal office, without consecration, or any 
other solemnity," Le Bas' Life of Cranmer, vol. i. p. 197. 



82 EPISCOPACY EXAMINED. 

get the names of Latimer, and Ridley, and Rodg- 
ers and Bradford ; names associated in the feelings 
of Christians, with the long list of ancient confessors 
u of whom the world was not worthy," and who did 
honor to entire ages of mankind, by sealing their 
attachment to the Son of God, on the rack, or amid 
the flames. Nor can we forget, that we owe to 
Episcopacy that which fills our mind with gratitude 
and praise, when we look for examples of consecra- 
ted talent, and elegant literature, and humble devo- 
ted piety. While men honor elevated Christian 
feeling ; while they revere sound learning ; while 
they render tribute to clear and profound reasoning, 
they will not forget the names of Barrow, and Tay- 
lor, of Tillotson, and Hooker, and Butler ;— and 
when they think of humble, pure, sweet, heavenly 
piety, their minds will recur instinctively to the name 
of Leighton. Such names, with a host of others, 
do honor to the world. When we think of them, 
we have it not in our hearts to utter one word against 
a church, which has thus done honor to our race, 
and to our common Christianity. 

Such we wish Episcopacy still to be. We have 
always thought that there are Christian minds and 
hearts that would find more edification in the forms 
of worship in that church, than in any other. We 
regard it as adapted to call forth Christian energy, 
that might otherwise be dormant. We do not grieve 
that the church is divided into different denomina- 
tions* To all who hold essential truth, we bid God 



EPISCOPACY EXAMINED, "' g3 

speed ; and for all such we lift our humble supplica- 
tions to the God of all mercy, that he will make 
them the means of spreading the gospel around the 
globe. We ourselves could live and labor in friend- 
liness and love, in the bosom of the Episcopal 
church. While we have an honest preference for 
another department of the great field of Christian 
action ; while providential circumstances, and the 
suggestions of our own hearts and minds, have con- 
ducted us to a different field of labor ; we have 
never doubted that many of the purest flames of de- 
votion that rise from the earth, ascend from the al- 
tars of the Episcopal church, and that many of the 
purest spirits that the earth contains, minister at 
those altars, or breathe forth their prayers and 
praises in language consecrated by the use of piety 
for centuries. 

We have but one wish in regard to Episcopacy, 
We wish her not to assume arrogant claims. We 
wish her not to utter the language of denunciation. 
We wish her to follow the guidance of the dis- 
tinguished minister of her church, whose book we 
are reviewing, in not attempting to " unchurch" other 
denominations. We wish her to fall in with, or to 
go in advance of others, in the spirit of the age. 
Our desire is that she may become throughout, — 
as we rejoice she is increasingly becoming, — the 
warm, devoted friend of revivals, and missionary 
operations. She is consolidated ; well marshaled ; 
under an efficient system of laws ; and pre-eminently 



84 EPISCOPACY EXAMINED. 

fitted for powerful action in the field of Christian 
warfare. We desire to see her what the Macedo- 
nian phalanx was in the ancient army ; with her 
dense, solid organization, with her unity of move- 
ment, with her power of maintaining the position 
which she takes ; and with her eminent ability to 
advance the cause of sacred learning, and the love 
of order and of law : , attending or leading all other 
churches in the conquests of redemption in an alien- 
ated world. We would even rejoice to see her 
who was first in the field at the Reformation in Eng- 
land, first, also, in the field when the Son of God 
shall come to take to himself his great power ; and 
whatever positions may be assigned to other deno^ 
minations, we have no doubt that the Episcopal 
church is destined yet to be, throughout, the warm 
friend of revivals, and to consecrate her wealth and 
power to the work of making a perpetual aggression 
on the territories of sin and of death. 

When the review of the tract, 6i Episcopacy tested 
by Scripture," was prepared,* it was not our design, 
to engage in a controversy on the subject there 
discussed. We well knew how unprofitable and how 
endless such a controversy might become ; and we 
felt, that we had more important business to engage 
our attention, than that of endeavoring to defend the 
external order of the church. The subject attracted 
our notice, because, on two different occasions, the 
•tract, whicli was the subject of the review, had been 
* Christian Spectator, vol. vi. 



EPISCOPACY EXAMINED. 85 

sent to us, in one instance accompanied with a polite 
request, — evidently from an Episcopalian, — to give 
to it our particular attention ; because, too, the tract 
had been published at the " Episcopal Press," and 
it was known, that it would be extensively circulated; 
because it had been the subject of no small self- 
gratulation among the Episcopalians, and had been 
suffered, notwithstanding the manifest complacency 
with which they regarded it, to lie unanswered ; but 
mainly, because it made an appeal at once to the 
Bible, and professed a willingness, that the question 
should be settled by the authority of the scriptures 
alone. This appeared to us to be placing the sub- 
ject on new ground. The first emotion produced 
by the title of the tract, was one of surprise. We 
had been so accustomed to regard this controversy 
as one, that was to be settled solely by the authority 
of the fathers ; we had been so disheartened, and 
sickened by the unprofitable nature, the intermi- 
nable duration, and the want of fixed bounds and 
principles, in that investigation ; we had seen so 
little reference made to the Bible, on either side of 
the question, that it excited in us no small degree of 
surprise, to learn, that a bishop of the Episcopal 
church should be willing to make a direct, decisive, 
and unqualified appeal to the New Testament. It was 
so unusual ; it gave so new a direction to the contro- 
versy ; it promised so speedy an issue, and one so 
little auspicious to the cause which the bishop was 
engaged in defending, that we were not unwilling to 
8 



86 EriSCOPACS EXAMINED. 

turn aside from our usual engagements, and to ex- 
amine the proofs adduced in this somewhat novel 
mode of the Episcopal controversy. 

Shortly after our review was published, an " An- 
swer " to the article appeared in the " Protestant 
Episcopalian," understood to come from the author 
of the tract. With a copy of this, the writer of the 
review was politely, furnished by Dr. Onderdonk. 
The " Answer " is marked with the same general 
characteristics, as the tract itself. It evinces, in 
general, the same spirit of Christian feeling, and of 
candid inquiry; the same calm, collected, and manly 
style of argument ; the same familiarity with the 
subject ; and the same habit, — by no means as com- 
mon as is desirable, — of applying the principles of 
the inductive philosophy to moral subjects. To this 
general statement, perhaps, should be made a slight 
exception. A candid observer possibly, would dis- 
cern in the " Answer," some marks of haste, and 
some indications of disturbed repose, — possibly of a 
slight sensation in perceiving, that the material point 
of the argument in the tract, had not been as strongly 
fortified as was indispensable. As instances of this 
sensation, we might notice the train of remarks in 
pp. 8, 9, and especially in the following expressions* 
" The reasonings throughout his article, (the re- 
viewer's,) are much the same as those usually 
brought against Episcopacy ; and where they are 
not the same, they are so much minus the former 
ground," etc. " No one, for three years, brought 



EP1BC0PACY EXAMINED. 8t 

these old reasonings against the tract, no one, till the 
reviewer fancied he had discovered a weak spot in it, 
and might, therefore, re-produce some of them with 
effect." " The present is only a start in its slum- 
ber." And again, on p. 15, the author of the reply- 
Speaks of the reviewer, as one whom he suspects " to 
be a new comer into this field of controversy," if not 
with the intention, at least with the appearance, of 
designing to disparage the force of the arguments, 
which the reviewer had urged. Now, it is unne- 
cessary for us to remind Dr. Onderdonk, that the 
inquiry is not, whether the arguments are old or 
new, but whether they are pertinent and valid. Nor 
is the question, whether one is a " new comer " into 
this controversy. Arguments may not be the less 
cogent and unanswerable, for being urged by one 
who has not before entered the lists ; nor will argu- 
ments from the Bible be satisfactorily met, by an 
affirmation, that they are urged by one unknown in 
the field of debate. It may be proper, however, for 
us to observe, in self- vindication, that the arguments 
which we urged, were drawn from no other book 
than the Bible. The " Tract" and the New Testa- 
ment, were the only books before us in the prepara- 
tion of the article. The course of argument sug- 
gested, was that only which was produced by the 
investigation of the scriptures. Whether we have 
fallen into any train of thinking, which has been 
before urged by writers on this subject, we do not 
even now know, nor are we likely to know ; as it 



88 EPISCOPACY EXAMINED. 

is our fixed purpose, not to travel out of the record 
before us, — the inspired account of the matter in 
the sacred scriptures. If, however, the arguments 
which we have urged, be " the same with those 
which are usually brought against Episcopacy," it 
furnishes a case of coincidence of results, in investi- 
gating the New Testament, which is itself some evi- 
dence, that the objections to Episcopacy are such, 
as obviously occur to different minds, engaged in 
independent investigation. 

When the reply appeared, it became a question 
with us, whether the controversy should be pro- 
longed. A perusal of the " Answer " did not sug- 
gest any necessity for departing from our original 
intention, not to engage in such a controversy. It 
did not appear to furnish any new argument, which 
seemed to call for notice, or to invalidate any of the 
positions defended in the review. Almost the whole 
of the " Answer " appeared to be simply an ex. 
pansion of a note in the tract, (p. 12, note z.) which, 
when the review was prepared, seemed not to fur- 
nish an argument, that required particular attention. 
The fact, too, that then the argument was expressed 
in a note, in small type, and at the bottom of the page, 
was an indication, that it was not of much magnitude, 
in the eye of the author of the tract himself. Why 
it is now expanded, so as to constitute the very body 
and essence of the reply, is to us proof, that the 
subject on the Episcopal side, is exhausted. This 
fact is of such a nature, as to impress the mind 



EPISCOPACY EXAMINED. 89 

strongly with the belief, that henceforth nothing re- 
mains to be added, in the effort to " Test Episcopacy 
by Scripture." 

In departing from our original purpose, it is our 
wish to reciprocate the kind feeling and candor of 
the author of the "Tract," and of the "Answer." 
Truth, not victory, is our object. We have but one 
wish on this subject. It is, that the principles upon 
which God designed to establish and govern his 
holy church, may be developed and understood. 
We resume the subject, with profound and undimin- 
ished respect for the talents, the piety, and the learn- 
ing of the author of the Tract and Answer ; and 
with a purpose, that this shall be final, on our part, 
unless something new, and vital to the subject, shall 
be added. In this as well as in all other things, our 
desire is, not to write one line, which, dying, — or in 
heaven, 

— we would wish to blot. 

Still, this desire, so deeply cherished, does not forbid 
a full and free examination of arguments. Our 
conscientious belief is, that the superiority " in min- 
isterial power and rights," (Tract, p. 15.) claimed 
by Episcopal bishops, is a superiority known in 
the Episcopal churches only, and not in the New 
Testament; and this we purpose to show. 

In entering upon our examination of the " An- 
swer," we may remark, that the scriptural argu- 
ment for Episcopacy is now fairly and entirely 
before the world. On the Episcopal side, nothing 
8 



90 EPISCOPACY EXAMINED. 

material to be said, can remain. The whole ar- 
gument is in the Tract, and in the Answer. If 
Episcopacy is not established in these, we may 
infer, that it is not in the Bible. If not in the 
Bible, it is not " necessarily binding." (Tract, p. 3.) 
To this conclusion, — that the whole of the material 
part of the scriptural argument is before the world, 
in these pamphlets, — we are conducted, by the fact, 
that neither talent, learning, zeal, nor time, have 
been wanting, in order to present it ; that their au- 
thor entered on the discussion, manifestly acquaint- 
ed with all that was to be said ; that the subject has 
now been before the public more than four years ; 
(See advertisment to the Tract,) and that, during 
that time, it is to be presumed, if there had been any 
more material statements to be presented from the 
Bible, they would have appeared in the "Answer." 
There is much advantage in examining an argument, 
with the conviction, that nothing more remains to 
be said ; and that we may, therefore, contemplate 
it as an unbroken and unimproveable whole, with- 
out the possibility of any addition to the number of 
the arguments, or increase of their strength. On 
this vantage-ground we now stand, to contemplate 
the argument in support of the stupendous fabric of 
Episcopacy in the Christian church. 

In entering upon this examination, we are struck 
with — what we had indeed anticipated, — a very 
strong inclination, on the part of the author of the 
tract, to appeal again to certain " extraneous" 



EPISCOPACY EXAMINED. 91 

authorities, of which we heard nothing in the tract 
itself, except to disclaim them. The tract com- 
menced with the bold and startling announcement, 
that if Episcopacy has not the authority of scrip- 
ture, it is not "necessarily binding." p. 3. "No 
argument," the tract goes on to say, " is worth 
taking into the account, that has not a palpable 
bearing on the clear and naked topic, — the scrip- 
tural evidence of Episcopacy." p. 3. We have 
italicised a part of this quotation, to call the at- 
tention of our readers particularly to it. The af- 
firmation, so unusual in the mouth of an Episco- 
palian, is, that no argument is worth taking in- 
to the account, that does not bear on the scrip- 
tural proof. Now we anticipated that if a reply 
was made to our review, from any quarter, we 
should find a qualification of this statement, and 
a much more complacent regard shown to the 
fathers, and to other " extraneous considerations" 
{Tract, p. 4.) than would be consistent with this 
unqualified disclaimer, in the tract. The truth is, 
that the fathers are regarded as too material wit- 
nesses, to be so readily abandoned. The < tradi- 
tion of the elders,' has been too long pressed into 
the service of the Episcopacy ; there has been too 
conscious a sense of the weakness of the scriptural 
proof, to renounce heartily, entirely, and forever, all 
reliance on other proof than the New Testament. 
The "Answer" would have lacked a very ma- 
terial feature which we expected to find in it, if 



02 EPISCOPACY EXAMINEL. 

there had been no inclination manifested, to plunge 
into this abyss of traditional history, where light 
and darkness struggle together, and no wish to 
recall the testimony of uninspired antiquity, to the 
service of prelacy. Accordingly, we were pre- 
pared for the following declaration, which we 
quote entire, from pp. 3 and 4, of the Answer : — • 

1 Because the author of the tract rested the claims 
of Episcopacy finally on scripture — because he fills 
a high office in the church — and because the tract is 
issued by so prominent an episcopal institution as the 
" Press," the reviewer seems to think, that Episco- 
palians are now to abandon all arguments not drawn 
directly from the holy volume. Not at all. The 
author of the tract, in his sermon at the consecration 
of the four bishops, in October, 1832, advocated epis- 
copacy, besides on other grounds, on that of there 
being several grades of office in the priesthoods of 
all religions, false as well as true, and in all civil 
magistracies and other official structures, — and, in his 
late Charge, be adverted to the evidence in its favor 
contained in the Fathers. And the " Press," at the 
time it issued the tract, issued also with it, in the 
" Works on Episcopacy," those of Dr. Bowden and 
Dr. Cooke ; which embrace the argument at large. 
There is no reason, therefore, for thinking, that, 
however a single writer may use selected arguments 
in a single publication, either he or other Episco- 
palians will (or should) narrow the ground they have 
usually occupied. The Fathers are consulted on 



EPISCOPACY EXAMINED. 93 

this subject, because the fabric of the ministry which 
they describe forms an historical basis for interpre- 
ting scripture. And general practice, in regard to 
distinct grades among officers, throws a heavier 
burden of disproof on those whose interpretations 
are adverse to Episcopacy : this latter topic we shall 
again notice before we close.' 

This passage, so far from insisting, as the Tract 
had done, that no argument was worth taking into 
the account, except the scriptural proof, refers dis- 
tinctly to the following points, which we beg leave to 
call " extraneous considerations" as proof of Episco- 
pacy. (1.) The fact, that there "are several grades 
of office in the priesthood of all religions ;" (2.) That 
the same thing occurs "in all civil magistracies, and 
other official structures ;" (3.) The evidence of the 
fathers; and, (4.) "Other grounds," which the 
author informs us he had insisted on, in an ordina- 
tion sermon, in 1832. And in this very passage, 
he makes the following remarkable statement, which 
we propose soon to notice further : " The fathers 
are consulted on the subject, because the fabric of 
the ministry which they describe, forms an historical 
basis for interpreting scripture." 

Slight circumstances often show strong inclina- 
tions, and habits of mind, How strong a hold this 
reference to other " considerations" than the scrip- 
tures, has been taken upon the mind of the author 
of the Tract, and how reluctant he was to part with 
the " extraneous" argument from the fathers, is 



94 EPISCOPACY EXAMINED. 

shown by the fact, that he again recurs to it in the 
H Answer," and presents it at much greater length. 
Thus on pp. 18, 19 at the very close of the Answer, 
we are presented with the following recurrence to 
the argument from other considerations than the 
scriptures : — 

u One word more concerning the " burden of 
proof," as contrasted with the " presumptive argu- 
ment." The tract claimed no presumption in its fa- 
vor in seeking for the scriptural proofs of episcopacy. 
We do — a presumption founded on common sense, 
as indicated by common practice. Set aside parity and 
episcopacy, and then look at other systems of office 
both religious and civil, and you find several grades 
of officers. In the patriarchal church, there was the 
distinction of "high-priests" and " priest." In the Jew- 
ish church (common sense being, in this case unques- 
tionably, divinely approved,) there were the high- 
priest, priests, and levites. Among Pagans and Maho- 
medans, there are various grades in the office deemed 
sacred. Civil governments have usually govenors, a 
president, princes, a king an emperor, &c, as the 
heads of the general, or state, or provincial magistra- 
cies. In armies and navies, there is always a chief. 
If the reviewer should claim exceptions, we reply, 
they are exceptions only, and very few in number. 
The general rule is with us. That general rule, 
next to universal, is, that among officers, there is a 
difference of power, of rights, of rank, of grade, call 
it what you will. And this general rule gives a 



EPISCOPACY EXAMINED. 95 

presumption that such will also be the case in the 
Christian church. We go to scripture then with the 
presumptive argument fully against parity. If we 
should find in scripture neither imparity nor parity, 
still common sense decides for the former. If we 
find the tone of scripture doubtful, on this point, im- 
parity has the advantage, common sense turning the 
scale. If we find there intimations, less than posi- 
tive injunctions, in favor of imparity, common sense, 
besides the respect due to scripture, decides for our 
interpretation of them. And if any thing in scrip- 
ture is supposed to prove or to justify parity, it must 
be very explicit, to overturn the suggestion of com- 
mon sense. The " presumptive argument," then, is 
clearly with us, and the " burden of proof" lies on 
parity. Let the reviewer peruse the tract again, 
bearing in mind the principles laid down in this 
paragraph, and he will, we trust, think better of it." 
These observations, it will be remembered, are 
made by the same writer, and in connection with 
the same subject, as the declaration, that " no argu- 
ment IS WORTH TAKING INTO THE ACCOUNT, that has 

not a palpable leaving on the clear and naked topic, — 
the scriptural evidence of Episcopacy. 

Now, against the principles of interpretation here 
stated, and which the Tract led us to suppose were 
abandoned, we enter our decided and solemn protest. 
The question, — the only question in the case, is, 
Whether Episcopacy " has the authority of scrip- 
ture?" (Tract, p. 3.) The affirmation is, that if it 



96 EPISCOPACY EXAMINED. 

has not, " it is not necessarily binding." (p. 3.) The 
principle of interpretation, which in the Answer is 
introduced, to guide us in this inquiry, is that " the 
fathers are consulted on the subject, because the 
fabric of the ministry which they describe, forms an 
historical basis of interpreting scripture." (Answer, 
p. 3.) In order to understand the bearing of this 
rule of interpretation, it is necessary to know what 
it means. A " basis " is defined to be " the founda- 
tion of a thing ; that on which a thing stands or lies ; 
that on which it rests; the ground-work or first 
principle ; that which supports." Webster. An 
historical basis" must mean, therefore, that the opi- 
nions, or facts of history, that is, in this case, the 
testimony of the fathers, constitute the foundation? 
the ground-work, or first principle, of the interpreta- 
tion of the Bible ; or that on which such an interpre- 
tation rests, or by which it is supported. It would 
seem to follow, therefore, that, unless we first be- 
come acquainted with this " historical basis," we are 
wholly in the dark about the proper interpretation 
of the Bible, and that our interpretation is destitute 
of any true support and authority. To this prin- 
ciple of interpretation, in this case, and in all others, 
the objections are obvious and numerous. (1.) Our 
first objection lies against the supposed necessity of 
having any such previously ascertained basis, in 
order to a just interpretation of the oracles of God. 
We object wholly to the doctrine, that the scriptures 
are to be interpreted by historical facts to be de- 



EPISCOPACY EXAMINED. 97 

veloped long after the book was written. The great 
mass of men are wholly incompetent to enter into 
any such " historical" inquiry ; but the great mass 
of men are not unqualified to understand the general 
drift and tenor of the New Testament. (2.) The 
statement is, that " the fabric of the ministry which 
they describe," is to be the basis of such interpre- 
tation. But who knows what the fabric of the 
ministry which they describe is? It is to be re- 
membered, that the question is not respecting the 
ministry in the fourth century and onwards. But 
the inquiry, — and the only one of material value 
in any supposition, — pertains to the fathers previous 
to that period. And there every thing is unsettled. 
Prelacy claims the fathers in that unknown age. 
The papacy claims the fathers there. Presbyterian- 
ism claims the fathers there. Congregationalism 
and Independency too, claim them there. Every 
thing is unsettled and chaotic. And this is the very 
point which has been the interminable subject of 
contention in this whole inquiry, and from which we 
hoped we had escaped, by the principles laid down 
in the Tract. Yet the position now advanced, would 
lead us again into all the difficulties, and contro- 
versies, and jostling elements, and contradictory 
statements, which have always attended the appeal to 
the fathers. If we are to wait until we have ascer- 
tained " the fabric of the ministry" which these fa- 
thers describe, before we have a " basis " for inter- 
preting scripture, we may close the New Testament 
9 



98 EPISCOPACY EXAMINED. 

in despair, (3.) This canon of interpretation is con- 
trary to the rule which Dr. Onderdonk has himself 
laid down in the Tract itself, (p. 3.) In that instance, 
the authority of the scriptures was declared to be 
ample, and final. And throughout the Tract, there 
is a manifest indication of a belief, that the Bible is 
susceptible of interpretation, on the acknowledged 
rules of language, and the principles of common 
sense. We hailed such a manifestation, not only as 
auspicious to the cause of truth in regard to the 
claims of Episcopacy, but because it evinced the 
spirit to which the church must con\e, — of a direct, 
unqualified, and final appeal to the word of God, — 
to determine religious doctrine. To that standard, 
we mean to adhere. And, as far as in us lies, we 
intend to hold it up to the view of men, and to insist 
on the great truth from which nothing shall ever di- 
vert us, and from which we fervently pray the church 
may never be diverted, that we are not to look for 
the discovery of truth, by ascertaining^^ an " his- 
torical basis," or, a set of instruments by which we 
are to measure and adjust the proportions of truth 
which we find in the revelation of God. Without any 
design to disparage or undervalue the fathers, whom 
we sincerely reverence, as having been holy, bold, 
and venerable men ; without any blindness, as we 
believe, to the living lustre of that piety which led 
many of them to the stake ; without any apprehen- 
sion, that their testimony, when examined, would be 
found to be on the side of Episcopacy, — for it re- 



EPISCOPACY EXAMINED. 99 

mains yet to be seen, that the fathers of the first two 
centuries ever dreamed of the pride and domination 
which subsequently crept into the church, and as- 
sumed the form of prelacy and popery : without any 
thing to influence us, so far as we know, from any 
of these " extraneous'' sources, we intend to do all 
in our power to extend and perpetuate the doctrine, 
that the ultimate appeal in all religious inquiry, is to 
be the Bible, and the Bible only. " The Bible," said 
Chilling worth, " is the religion of the Protestants." 
We rejoice, to hear this sentiment echoed from the 
assistant bishop of Pennsylvania. And without mean- 
ing to insinuate, that this sentiment is not as honestly 
acted on by Episcopalians, as by any other denomi- 
nation of Christians, we may add, that we deem the" 
first sentence of the Tract worthy to be written in 
letters of gold, on the posts of every Episcopal sanc- 
tuary, and over every altar, and on the cover of 
every " Book of Common Prayer." " The claim of 
Episcopacy to be of divine institution^ and therefore 
obligatory on the church, rests fundamentally on the 
one question, — Has it the authority of scripture ? If 
it has not, it is not necessarily binding." (4.) Our 
fourth objection to this rule of interpretation is, that 
it is, substantially, that on which rests the papal 
hierarchy. We do not know, that the papist would 
wish to express his principles of interpretation in 
stronger language, than that " the fathers are con- 
sulted on this subject, because the fabric of the mi- 
nistry which they describe, forms an historical basis 



100 EPISCOPACY EXAMINED. 

for interpreting scripture." To us it seems, that 
this would express all that they ask ; and as we 
doubt not, that Dr. Onderdonk would shrink from 
any approximation to the papacy, quite as firmly as 
ourselves, we deem it necessary merely to suggest 
the consideration, to render the objection at once 
satisfactory to his own mind. 

We object, also, to the principle of interpretation 
advanced on p. 18, of the Answer, which we have 
already quoted. The fact there assumed, is, that 
various orders of men are observable in civil go- 
vernment, etc.; and hence, that there is presumptive 
evidence, that such orders are to be found in the 
scriptures. We are not ignorant of the purpose for 
which this fact is adduced. It is to show, that the 
" burden of proof " does not lie so entirely on the 
Episcopalian, as we had affirmed in the review. 
We admit, to some extent, the modifying force of 
the circumstances, so far as the M burden of proof" 
is concerned. But it merely lightens the burden ; it 
does not remove it. Presumption, in such a case, is not 
proof. When the fact affirmed relates to a doctrine 
of the Bible, it is not sufficient to say, that that fact 
occurred elsewhere, and therefore it must occur in the 
Bible. It is still the business of the Episcopalian, to 
prove his affirmation from the New Testament it- 
self, that bishops are superior to other ministers of 
the gospel, in ministerial power and rights. This is 
his affirmation ; this is the point which he urges ; 
this is to be made out from the Bible only ; and assu- 



EPISCOPACY EXAMINED, 101 

redly fact, that there are dukes, and earls, and em- 
perors, and admirals, and nabobs, forms, at best, a 
very slight presumption in favor of the affirmation, 
that the ministry of the gospel consists of three 
1 orders.' But our objections may be further stated. 
So far as the presumption goes, it is not particularly 
in favour of Episcopacy, as consisting in three or- 
ders of the clergy. For, (1.) The fact is not, that 
there are three orders observable every where. It 
is, that there are many orders and ranks of civil of- 
ficers and of men. (2.) The presumption drawn from 
what has taken place, would be rather in favor of 
despotism, and the papacy. (3.) The presumption 
is equally met by the doctrine of Presbyterianism 
as by prelacy. Presbyterians hold equally to a di- 
vision of their community into various ranks, — into 
bishops, and elders, and deacons, and people. The 
presumption, drawn from the fact, that civil society 
is thus broken up, is as really in their favor, as in 
favor of Episcopacy. (4.) The Congregationalist 
may urge it with the same propriety. His commu- 
nity registers the names of his minister, and deacons, 
and church, and congregation, each with distinct 
privileges and rights. If Dr. Onderdonk should 
reply to this, that his remark referred only to the 
distinction of " systems of office, both religious and 
civil," (p. 18.) and "that among officers, there is a 
difference of power and rights," (p. 19.) we reply, 
that the distinction of officers pertains to other 
churches, as well as the Episcopal. No non-Epis- 
9* 



102 EPISCOPACY EXAMINED. 

copalian, perhaps, can be found, who holds to a pa- 
rity of office. He will refer, at once, to his minister, 
to his elders, to his deacons, as evincing sufficient 
disparity, to meet the full force of the presumption 
alledged by Dr. Onderdonk. But our main objec- 
tion here, as before, is to the principle of interpreta- 
tion. We respectfully insist, that it should be laid 
aside, as an " extraneous consideration," in the in- 
quiry, whether Episcopacy " has the authority of 
scripture." 

In our review, we stated, that the burden of proof, 
in this inquiry, was laid wholly on the friends of 
Episcopacy. This point was so obvious, that 
we did not think it necessary to illustrate it at length. 
Nor do we now intend to do more than merely, by 
adverting to it, to recall it to the attention of our read- 
ers. The author of the " Answer" has endeavored 
to remove this burden from himself and his friends. 
(p. 4, and p. 18.) This he has done, by attempting 
to show, that there is a presumptive argument in fa- 
vor of Episcopacy ; which presumption throws the 
task of proving the parity of the clergy on those 
who advocate it. Now we are not disposed to 
enter into a controversy on this point. To us it 
seemed, and still seems, to be a plain case, that where 
it was affirmed, that the clergy of the Christian 
church was separated, by divine authority, into three 
grades, or orders, and that one of those orders had 
the exclusive right of ordination, of discipline, and of 
general superintendance ; it could not be a matter 



EPISCOPACY EXAMINED. 103 

requiring much deliberation, to know where rested 
the burden of proof. If a man assumes authority 
over an army, demanding the subordination of all 
other officers to his will, it is not a very unreason- 
able presumption, that the burden of proof lies with 
him; nor would it be the obvious course, to 
expect the entire mass of officers to show, that he 
had not received such a commission. We shall, 
therefore, feel ourselves to be pursuing a very ob- 
vious course, if we do not recognize the authority of 
Episcopal bishops, unless there is proof positive of 
their commission. We may add further, that in 
the supposed case of the commander of the army 
or the navy, we should not regard that as a very 
satisfactory proof, which was pursued with as little 
directness and explicitness as are evinced in the ar- 
gument to establish the original domination and per- 
petuity of the prelatical office. And in this connec- 
tion we may remark, that it is perfectly immaterial, 
as to the main point, what may be the opinion of the 
man who calls the claim in question, or what may 
be the particular denomination to which he is at- 
tached. Whether he is an Independent, a Presbyte- 
rian, or a Congregationalist, it may be equally true, 
that the bishop of the Episcopal church is unable to 
make out his claims from the New Testament. The 
only material point, in which all other denominations 
are agreed, is, that the ministers of the New Testa- 
ment are on an equality, in the respect under consi- 
deration; that the power of ordaining, and adminis- 



104 EPISCOPACY EXAMINED. 

tering discipline, and of superintending the concerns 
of the church, is intrusted to them, as equals, in op- 
position to the exclusive and exalted assumptions of a 
few, who claim the right to deprive th<r m of these 
powers, and to make their ministrations null and 
void. And when claims of this order are advanced, 
— claims designed to dispossess the great mass of 
the ministry throughout the world, of the right of 
transmitting their office to others ; of exercising go- 
vernment and discipline in their own pastoral char- 
ges ; of superintending and controlling the affairs of 
the particular portion of the church universal, with 
which they are specifically intrusted ; when claims 
like these are presented, tending to degrade them 
from their office, to annihilate their authority, and 
to leave their charges without a ministry ; — we 
may respectfully insist, that the proof of this should 
be drawn, by no circumlocution, from the Bible. 
We wish to see, with great pertinency, the chapter, 
and the verse : we can with difficulty resist the im- 
pression, that it should be done totidem verbis, or at 
least, so nearly so, that there could be no possibility 
of mistake. 

We may here remind our readers, of the precise 
points which Episcopacy is called upon to make 
out. The first is, that the apostles were " distin- 
guished from the elders, because they were supe- 
rior to them in ministerial power and rights." (Tract, 
p. 15.) The second is, that this distinction * was 
so persevered in, as to indicate, that it was aperma. 



E?ISeOPACY EXAMINE©. 105 

nent arrangement." (Tract, p. 23.) These are 
independent propositions. One by no means follows 
from the other. Should the first be admitted, yet 
the second is to be established by equally explicit 
and independent proof. Nay, the second is by far 
the most material point, and should, as we shall 
show, be fortified by the most irrefragable argu- 
ments. The third point, indispensable to the other 
two, is, that there is no evidence in the New Testa- 
ment, that presbyters, or elders, discharged the 
functions which are now claimed for bishops ; that 
is, that they either (1.) ordained, or (2.) exercised 
discipline, or (3.) exerted a general supervision. 
(Tract, p. 11.) Unless then it is shown, that not 
one of these functions was ever performed by pres- 
byters, the Episcopal claim fails of support, and 
must be abandoned. These are independent posi- 
tions, and a failure in one, is a failure in the whole. 

To a cursory review of what can be said on 
these points, we now propose to call the attention of 
our readers. 

The first claim asserted, is, that, the apostles 
were " distinguished from the elders, because they 
were superior to them, in ministerial power and 
rights." (Tract, p. 15.) The points of their al- 
ledged superiority, are, exclusive ordination, exclu- 
sive discipline, exclusive confirmation, and exclusive 
right of general superintendence. The question is, 
whether this is the nature of the superiority, with 
which the apostles were intrusted ; or, which is the 



106 EPISCOPACY EXAMINED. 

same thing, were these the purposes for which they 
icere set apart to the apostolic office, and for which 
they were called apostles ? Dr. Onderdonk affirms 
it ; we take the liberty, most respectfully, of calling 
for explicit proof of it, from the New Testament. 

His direct proof is contained in a nut-shell. It 
consists of one expression of scripture : (Acts xv. 
2, 4, 6, 22 ; xvi. 4.) " Apostles and elders," " apos- 
tles, and elders, and brethren ;" and a note on p. 
12, of the tract, and in the reply, expanded to more 
than two pages, showing that, in his apprehension, 
they administered discipline. As this is the basis 
on which the whole fabric is reared, and as it em- 
braces the very gist of the " Answer," we shall be 
pardoned for adverting to it with some particularity. 

We may then inquire, why the apostles were 
distinguished from the elders, or presbyters? Dr. 
Onderdonk affirms, that it was because they were 
" superior in ministerial power and rights." The 
argument on this subject, from the New Testament, 
is, that the two classes of men are distinguished 
from each other, (Acts, xv. 2, 4, 6, 22 ; xvi. 4.) by 
the following expressions ; " apostles and elders," 
" apostles, and elders, and brethren." Now in re- 
gard to this proof, we beg leave to make the follow- 
ing remarks. 

(1.) That it is the only direct passage of scrip- 
ture, which Dr. O. is able to adduce, on the subject 
of the alledged superiority of the apostles. Its im- 
portance, in his view, may be seen from the fact, 



EPISCOPACY EXAMINED. 107 

that it is not merely the only proof, but, that it is re- 
peated not less than five times, in the space of less 
than a single page of the tract; (pp. 14, 15.) and 
that it occupies a similar prominence in the Answer. 
The tract has been written four years. Diligent 
research during that time, it would be supposed, 
might have led to the discovery of some other text, 
that had a bearing on the point. But the matter 
still rests here. There is no other text ; and the 
fabric is to be sustained on the solitary expression, 
" apostles and elders," " apostles, and elders, and 
brethren." 

(2.) What does this passage prove? It proves 
this, and no more, that there was a distinction of 
some sort, between the apostles and elders, — which 
is a point of just as much importance, as when we 
affirm, that one class were called apostles, and an- 
other called elders. But it is difficult for us to see, 
how this determines any thing respecting the tea- 
sons of the distinction. In Ephesians, iv. 11, the 
apostle affirms, that God gave some, apostles ; and 
some, prophets ; and some, evangelists ; and some, 
pastors and teachers. Here a distinction is made 
out. But is the nature of the distinction thereby 
ascertained ? I speak of guineas, and doubloons, 
and guilders. I affirm a distinction, indeed ; but is 
its nature ascertained? Have I determined, that 
the guinea is, therefore, superior in weight or value 
to the others ? 

(3.) We have never denied, that there was a 



108 EPISCOPACY EXAMINED. 

distinction between the apostles, and elders, and 
brethren. The very fact, that they had the name 
apostles, shows, that there must have been some 
distinction, or some reason why they were so called. 
Unusual discernment, or labored argument, surely, 
are not necessary to perceive this. But the very 
point is, what is the nature of this distinction ? And 
this is to be settled, not by the use of the word, but 
by the statement in the New Testament ; and it is 
incumbent on the Episcopalian to show, by proof 
texts, that it was because the apostles were superior 
in the power of ordination, of confirmation, of disci- 
pline, and of general superintendence of a diocese. 
Dr. Onderdonk affirmed, that the name was not so 
given, because they were appointed by Christ per- 
sonally ; nor because they had seen the Lord after his 
resurrection ; nor because they had the power of 
working miracles : and then observed, that " it fol- 
lowed, on would not be questioned, that it was because 
they were superior in ministerial power and rights." 
(Tract, p. 15.) It seems not to have occurred to 
him, that they could be appointed to be witnesses 
of Ms entire ministry, including the fact of his resur- 
rection, as a main point. We took the liberty, 
therefore, of examining this matter, as very material 
to the argument. We proved, (1.) That in the 
original appointment of the apostles, there was 
no reference to their superiority, in the powers 
of ordination, discipline, etc. This position 
we supported by the three separate accounts of 



EPISCOPACY EXAMINED. 109 

Matthew, Mark, and Luke. (2.) That no such 
thing occurred in the instructions of our Lord, after 
his resurrection from the dead. This also we con- 
firmed, by an examination of the testimony of Mat- 
thew, Mark, and Luke, in neither of whose gospels 
was there found a vestige of such instructions. 
(Review, p. 10.) (3.) That there was no where 
else, in the New Testament, any account, that what 
Dr. O. affirmed, as the peculiarity of the apostolic 
office, was known to the writers. This conclusion 
we rested upon our own examination, and the fact, 
that Dr. O. had not adduced any such passage, 
(4.) That the reason of the appointment to the 
apostolic office was expressly affirmed ; and, that it 
was not that which Dr. O. supposed it to be, We 
showed, (a) that it was expressly affirmed, in the 
original appointment, (Luke xxiv. 48. Matt, xxviii. 
18, 19.) that they should be witnesses of these 
things ; (Review, p. 12.) (b) that this was expressly 
provided for, in the case of the election of one to 
fill the place vacated by Judas; (Acts, i. 21, 22.) 
(c) that this was the account which the apostles 
uniformly gave, of the design of their appointment ; 
(see- p. 13.) (d) that the same thing was again ex- 
pressly provided for, in the case of the apostle Paul, 
and, that in order to a qualification for that office, 
he was permitted to " see the Just one," the Lord 
Jesus ; (Acts xxii. 14.) and, (e) that he himself ex- 
pressly appeals to the fact, as a proof, that he was 
fullv invested with the apostolic office. 1 Cor. ix, 
10 



HO EriSCOPACY EXAMINED 

1, 2.) (See Review, p. 15.) In the course of the 
argument, we adduced not less than twenty explicit 
passages of scripture, bearing directly on the point, 
and proving beyond dispute, that this was the de- 
sign of the appointment to the apostolic office. Our 
purpose in this, was evident. It was to show, that 
the peculiarity of the apostolic office was of such a 
nature, that it could not be transmitted to distant 
generations ; but, that it had a specific, yet very 
important design, which, as a matter of course, must 
cease. 

With deep interest, therefore, we opened the 
" Answer," to ascertain how this array^-of scriptural 
argument was met. We did not deem it unreason- 
able to suppose, that there would be some new at- 
tempt to show, that the peculiarity of the apostolic 
office, was to ordain ; that the passages of scripture 
on which we had relied, were irrelevant ; or, that 
other passages might be adduced in proof of what 
Dr. O. had affirmed to be the peculiarity of the 
apostolic office, and which we had respectfully de- 
nied. Our readers will join with us in our ' amaze- 
merit, 9 to find the following, as the result of an ex- 
amination of the "Answer." 

(1,) A solemn, and somewhat pompous re-addu- 
cing Of the expression, (Acts xv.) " the apostles and 
elders," "the apostles, and elders, and brethren ;" 
(Answer, p. 7.) a passage, maintaining still its soli- 
tary dignity, and reposing in the " Answer," as it 
had in the " Tract," in its own lonely grandeur. 



EPISCOPACY EXAMINED. XIX 

We could not restrain our ' amazement' that no 
other passages were even referred to, on this mate- 
rial point ; and we came to the conclusion, that we 
had readied an end of the argument, so far as 
direct scripture proof was concerned. 

(2.) We found a notice of our extended array 
of proof-texts, showing what was the design of the 
apostolic appointment, of a character so remarkable, 
that we shall quote it entire. 

" The reviewer, in order to show what he thinks 
was the point in which the apostles excelled the 
elders, in the matter in question, dwells largely on 
the fact, that they were special witnesses of our 
Lord's resurrection, — and with the help of capital 
and italic letters, he has certainly made a showy 
argument. But nobody denies, that they were the 
special witnesses, — or, that they were distinguished 
from the elders, as well as from others called apos- 
tles, — the tract gave due attention to both these par- 
ticulars. The point is, — was this distinction the one 
that led to the expression, " apostles and elders ?" 
Surely not. Among those apostles was Barnabas, 
and perhaps Silas,* neither of whom was a special 
witness of the resurrection. Besides, the expres- 
sions, " apostles and elders," " apostles, and elders, 
and brethren," are used with immediate reference 
to the council at Jerusalem, — and the reviewer is 
more acute than we pretend to be, if he can say 

*Acts xiv. 14; xv. 2, 4, 22. 1 Thess. i. 1; ii. 6. 



112 EPISCOPACY EXAMINED. 

why, in a council, acting on questions concerning 
'idols, blood, things strangled, and licentiousness,' 
the special witnesses of the resurrection should, as 
such, have peculiar authority. We really think 
the tract argues with more consistency, when it 
says, that the apostles were ministerially above the 
elders." Answer, p. 16. 

Here, it will be observed, there is no notice 
taken of texts, which we had adduced, as irrele- 
vant, or unsatisfactory in number, or as unfairly 
interpreted. Dr. Onderdonk, if he was the writer 
of the Answer, deemed it an ample notice of those 
texts, to remark, that, u with the help of capital 
and italk letters, he (the reviewer,) had certainly 
made a showy argument." (Answer, p. 16.) 
That our argument was thus noticed, was, indeed, 
to us a matter of ' amazement.' It was, however, 
an indication, — of which we were not slow to avail 
ourselves, and the hold upon which, we shall not be 
swift to lose, — that our proof-texts were ad rem, and 
that they settled the question. When all that the 
assistant bishop of Pennsylvania deems it proper to 
say, of our array of more than twenty explicit 
declarations of the word of God, is, that, by the help 
of capitals and italics, they constitute a " SHOWY 
argument," (we mean no disrespect, when we dis- 
play the word in a showy form,) we deem the 
conclusion to be inevitable, that our texts are just 
what we intended they should be, — that they settled 
the question, — and, to use an expression from the 



EPISCOPACY EXAMINED. H3 

favorite chapter of the Acts of the apostles, we 
" rejoice for the consolation. " Acts xv. 31. 

(3.) Though we were not met by any new 
proof-texts, or by any answer to our own, we were 
referred to the sentiments of the following distin- 
guished men, viz. : the late Dr. Wilson, Dr. Miller, 
Dr. Campbell, Matthew Henry, " the divines who 
argued with Charles I, in the isle of Wight," and 
Calvin, to prove, that the apostles were superior to 
the elders, and the evangelists. (Answer, p. 10.) 
Respecting these authorities, we may be permitted 
to remark, (1.) that we shall probably not yield, 
out of regard to their names, to any person. With 
us, they have all the authority which uninspired men 
can ever be allowed to have. The writer of the 
review may be permitted to remark, perhaps, that 
he has occasion of peculiar respect for two of those 
venerable men. By one, — whose superior, in pro- 
found powers of reasoning, in varied and extensive 
learning, and in moral worth, he believes, is not now 
to be found among the living, in any American 
church, — he was preceded in the office which he 
now holds. At the feet of the other, it has been his 
privilege to sit, for nearly four years, and to receive 
the instructions of wisdom from his lips ; and, what- 
ever skill he may have in conducting this argument, 
on the government of the churches, he owes to the 
«f basis " which was laid by those instructions. 
Whatever may be said, therefore, of these authori- 
ties adduced in the " Answer," will not be traced to 
10* 



114 EPISCOPACY EXAMINED, 

want oL respect for these venerable names. But, 
(2.) we. may remark, that in this argument, the 
authorities of uninspired men are to be laid out of 
the account. With all due deference to them, and 
to Dr. O., we must be permitted to believe, that 
their authority belongs to the " extraneous consi- 
derations," as well as that of the opinion of Cran- 
mer, (Answer, p. 5.) which, by common consent, 
it had been agreed to lay out the controversy. 
(See Tract, pp. 3 — 10. Review, p. 5.) Our wonder 
is, that after the disclaimer of relying on these 
extraneous considerations, in the tract, the author of 
the Answer should have occupied nearly two pages, 
with the statements of these distinguished men. 
(3.) Their authority, even when adduced, does not 
bear on the point before us. The question is, whether 
the apostles were superior to other ministers of the 
gospel, in ministerial power and rights ? that is, in 
the power of ordination, confirmation, discipline, and 
general superintendence. Their authorities addu- 
ced, prove only, that in the judgment of these 
venerable men, they were superior in some respects, 
to evangelists, and teachers ; or, that there was a 
distinction between them, — a point on which we 
make no denial. On the only question in debate, 
they make no affirmation. On the claim set up by . 
Episcopalians, that the apostles were superior in 
ordination, etc., they concede nothing, nor did they 
believe a word of it. 

Having thus noticed the " Answer " on this part 



EPISCOPACY EXAMINED. H5 

of our argument, we shall dismiss it. We do it by 
simply reminding our readers, that the solitary text, 
which undisputed learning, talents, and zeal, have 
discovered, during a period of more than four years, 
since the discussion first commenced, — the lonely 
scripture proof of the sweeping claims, that the 
apostles only, had the power of ordination, and that 
this was the peculiarity of the office, — stands forth 
in the Tract, and in the Answer : " the apostles 
and elders," "apostles, and elders, and brethren !" 

But the author of the "Answer" complains, 
(p. 11.) that we did not give the 'whole' of his 
argument on the subject ; and he refers to a note on 
p. 12, of the Tract, designed to show, that the apos- 
tles had the power of administering discipline, and 
that therefore, they were superior to the presbyters, 
or held a more elevated grade of office. The note 
is this : — 

' That the apostles alone ordained, will be proved. 
In Cor. iv. 19—21 ; v. 3—5 ; 2 Cor. ii. 6 ; vii. 12 ; 
x. 8 ; xiii. 2, 10 ; and 1 Tim. i. 20 ; are recorded 
inflictions and remissions of discipline performed by 
an apostle, or threatenings on his part, although 
there must have been elders in Corinth, and cer- 
tainly were in Ephesus.' 

This note he expands into an argument, which 
constitutes the most material part of the " Answer." 
It is incumbent upon us to examine it, and to ascer- 
tain how far it goes to settle the point under discus- 
sion. Before examining the particular cases referred 



116 EFISCOPACY EXAMINED. 

to, we would remind our readers, that the purpose 
for which they are adduced, is to show, that the 
apostles were superior to presbyters in 'power and 
rights ; and the alledged proof is, that they adminis- 
tered discipline. To bear on the case, therefore, 
the passages must prove not only that they exercised 
discipline, but, (1.) That they did it as apostles, or 
in virtue of the apostolic office ; (2.) That they did 
it in churches where there were presbyters ; and, 
(3.) That presbyters never administered discipline 
themselves. The second point here adverted to, is 
all that the author of the " Answer" feels himself 
called upon to make out. (Answer, pp. 11—13.) 
Now in regard to this point of the proof, we make 
the following general remarks : (1.) There were 
certainly, in all, fourteen apostles ; and if we may 
credit the writer of these pamphlets, and reckon 
Timothy, and Barnabas, and Sylvanus, and Apollos, 
and Andronicus, and Junia, and Titus, and perhaps 
half a dozen others, there were somewhat more than 
a score invested with this office ; yet it is remarka- 
ble, that the only cases of discipline referred to, as 
going to prove the superiority of the whole college 
of apostles, are cases in which the apostle Paul only 
was concerned. (2.) There are accounts in the New 
Testament of perhaps some hundreds of churches ; 
and yet, we meet with no instance of the kind of 
discipline relied on, except in the single churches of 
Corinth and Ephesus. It is incredible, that there 
should have been no other cases of discipline in these 



EPISCOPACY EXAMINED. H7 

churches. But if there were, the presumption is, 
that they were settled without the intervention of an 
apostle. (3.) These very cases, as we shall present- 
ly show, were cases in which Paul administered the 
rod of discipline in the churches where Titus and 
Timothy, — apostles also and bishops, — were present, 
by the showing of the author of the " Answer," and 
thus were acts of manifest disrespect for the authority 
of those prelates. And if the fact, that the discipline 
was administered where there were presbyters, (An- 
swer, pp. 11, 12.) proves that the apostle was supe- 
rior to them, the same fact proves, that he was supe- 
rior to Timothy and Titus. The course of the ar- 
gument urged by the author of the " Answer," would 
be, that Paul was disposed to assume the whole 
power into his own hands, and to set aside the claims 
alike of bishops and presbyters. It has a very un- 
desirable looking towards the authority claimed by 
the papacy. 

The two cases alledged as proof, that the apos- 
tles only had the power of administering discipline* 
are those at Corinth and at Ephesus. Paul wrote 
fourteen epistles, and wrote them to eight churches. 
In all these epistles, and in all the numerous churches 
of which he had the charge, (2 Cor. xi. 28, " the 
care of all the churches.") these are the only instan- 
ces in which he was called, so far as appears, to 
exercise discipline. We now inquire, whether he 
did it for the purpose of showing, that the apostles 
only had this power ? 



118 EPISCOPACY EXAMINED. 

The first case alledged, is that at Corinth. " In 
1 Cor. iv. 19 — 21, etc., are recorded inflictions and 
remissions of discipline performed by an apostle, or 
threatenings on his part ; although there must have 
been elders at Corinth." (Note z, Tract, p. 12,) 
The argument here is, that there must have been 
elders at Corinth, and yet that Paul interposed over 
their heads to inflict discipline. This is the whole 
of the argument. (See Answer, p. 11.) 

In reply to these, we observe : That there were 
elders, teachers, ministers, instructors in Corinth, we 
think is placed beyond a question, by the argument 
of the " Answer," and by the nature of the case. 
This fact we do not intend to call in question. The 
argument of the " Answer" from this fact, we state 
in the author's own words : — 

' Yet, without noticing these elders in the matter 
so far as the epistles show — though they doubtless 
were noticed and consulted, as much as courtesy 
and their pastoral standing made proper — without 
putting the matter into their hands, or even passing 
it through their hands, Paul threatens, inflicts, and 
remits discipline among the people of their charge. 
This is a " ministerial" act. And Paul's doing it 
himself, instead of committing it to the elders, shows 
that he, an apostle, was "superior to them in minis- 
terial power and rights.'" p. 11. 

Further, if there were elders there, there was an 
"apostle;" a prelatical bishop, according to the 
Tract, there also. This is shown by a quotation 



EPISCOPACY EXAMINED. UQ 

from the epistle itself, relating to this very time, and 
in immediate connection with the case of discipline. 
(1 Cor. iv. 17.) "For this cause, [that is, on ac- 
count of your divided and contending state,] have I 
sent unto you Timotheus, who is my beloved son 
and faithful in the Lord, who shall bring you into 
remembrance of my ways which be in Christ, as I 
teach every where in every church." Now, as it 
will not be pretended by Episcopalians, that Timo- 
thy was not an " apostle," and as it is undeniable, 
that he was at that time at Corinth, the argument 
will as well apply to set aside Ms right to adminis- 
ter discipline in the case, as that of the elders. 
Borrowing, then, the words of the Answer, we would 
say : " Yet without noticing" this apostle " in the 
matter, so far as the epistles show, — though" he was 
* doubtless noticed and consulted, as much as cour- 
tesy and his" apostolical " standing made proper ; 
without putting the matter into" his " hands, or even 
passing it through" his " hands, Paul threatens, in- 
flicts, and remits discipline. This is a * ministerial' 
act. And Paul's doii.g it himself, instead of com- 
mitting it to" Timothy, " shows, that he, an apostle, 
was superior to" him " in ministerial power and 
rights." Now no Episcopalian will fail to be a 
once deeply impressed with the fallacy of this rea- 
soning, in regard to the " apostle" and " bishop" 
Timothy. And yet, it is manifestly just as pertinent 
and forcible in his case, as it is for the purpose of 
the Answer in regard to the elders of Corinth. It 



120 EPISCOPACS EXAMINED. 

cannot be pretended, that a difference existed, be ? 
cause the " elders" were permanently located there, 
and Timothy not ; for the argument of the 4i Tract" 
and the "Answer" is, that the apostles were superi- 
or as apostles, and therefore it made no difference on 
this point, whether they were at Corinth, or at Crete 
or at Antioch ; they where invested with the apos- 
tolic office every where. Our conclusion from this 
instance, and from the fact which we have now sta- 
ted, is, that there was some peculiarity in the case 
at Corinth, which rendered the ordinary exercise 
of discipline by presbyters difficult ; which operated 
equally against any interference by Timothy ; and 
which called peculiarly for the interposition of the 
founder of the church, and of an inspired apostle, — 
for one clothed with authority to inflict a heavy 
judgment here denominated " delivering unto satan 
for the destruction of the flesh," (1 Cor. v. 5.) — a 
power which could be exercised by none then in 
Corinth. Our next inquiry is, whether there are 
any reasons for this opinion 1 The following we be- 
lieve satisfactory : — 

(1.) Paul had founded that church, (Acts xviii. 
1 — 11.) and his interference in cases of discipline, 
would be regarded as peculiarly proper. There 
would be a natural and obvious deference to the 
founder of the church, which would render such an 
interposition in the highest degree appropriate. We 
are confirmed in this view, because he puts his au- 
thority in this very case on such a fact, and on the 



EPISCOPACY EXAMINED. 121 

deference which was due to him as their spiritual 
father. 1 Cor. iv. 15. u For though ye have ten 
thousand instructors in Christ, yet have ye not many 
fathers ; for in Christ Jesus i" have begotten you 
through the gospel." 

(2.) The circumstances of the church at Co- 
rinth were such, evidently, as to render the ordina- 
ry exercise of discipline, by their own elders, im- 
possible. They were distracted ; were rent into 
parties ; were engaged in violent contention ; and 
the authority, therefore, of one portion of the 
" teachers," and u instructors," would be disregard- 
ed by the other. Thus no united sentence could 
be agreed upon ; and no judgment of a party could 
restore peace. An attempt to exercise discipline, 
would only enkindle party animosity, and produce 
strife. See chap. i. 11 — 17. So great, evidently, 
was the contention, and so hopeless the task of 
allaying it by any ordinary means, that even Timo- 
thy, whom Paul had sent for the express purpose 
of bringing them into remembrance of his ways, 
(1 Cor. iv. 17.) could have no hope, by his own inter- 
ference, of allaying it. It was natural, that it 
should be referred to the founder of the church, 
and to one who had the power of punishing the 
offender. 

(3.) It is material to remark, that this was not 

an ordinary case of discipline. It was one, that 

required the severest exercise of authority, and in a 

form which was lodged only with those intrusted 

11 



122 EPISCOPACY EXAMINED. 

with the power of inflicting disease, or, as it is 
termed, " of delivering to Satan for the destruction 
of the flesh." 1 Cor. v. 5. Such cases would 
inevitably devolve upon the apostles, as clothed 
with miraculous power ; and such, beyond all con- 
troversy, was this case. It therefore proves no- 
thing about the ordinary mode of administering dis- 
cipline. This case had reached to such a degree 
of enormity ; it had been suffered to remain so 
long ; it had become so aggravated, that it was ne- 
cessary to interpose in this awful manner, and to 
decide it. Yet, 

(4.) The apostle supposes, that they ought to 
have exercised the usual discipline themselves. 
This is evident, we think, from a comparison of the 
following passages: 1 Cor. v. 9, 10, 11, 12, with 
v. 2. In these verses it is supposed, that they did 
themselves usually exercise discipline. Paul (ver. 
9.) gave them the general direction, not to keep 
company with fornicators ; that is, to exercise dis- 
cipline on those who did. In ver. 11, he asks 
them, — in a manner showing that the affirmative 
answer to the question expressed their usual prac- 
tice, — whether they did not "judge those that were 
within ?" that is, whether they did not ordinarily 
exercise discipline in the church ? And in ver. 2, 
he supposes that it ought to have been done in this 
case ; and as it had not been done by them, and the 
affair had assumed special enormity, he exercised 
th$ miraculous power intrusted to him, by inflicting 



EPISCOPACY EXAMINED, 123 

on the offender a grievous disease, (ver. 4, 5 ; 
comp. 1 Cor. xi. 30.) 

(5.) It is evident that other churches did, in 
ordinary cases, exercise discipline without the inter- 
vention of an apostle. Thus the church in Thes- 
salonica, — where Episcopacy, with all its zeal, has 
never been able even to conjecture, that there was 
a diocesan bishop, — was directed to exercise disci- 
pline, in any instance where the command of the 
inspired apostle was not obeyed. (2 Thess. hi. 14.) 
We shall soon make this point incontestible. 

(6.) The circumstances of the early churches 
were such, as to make this apostolic intervention 
proper, and even indispensable, without supposing 
that it was to be a permanent arrangement. They 
were ignorant and feeble. They had had little op- 
portunity of learning the nature of Christianity. In 
most cases, their founders were with them but a few 
weeks, and then left them under the care of elders 
ordained from among themselves. (Comp. Acts 
xiii, xiv. et passim.) Those elders would be poorly 
qualified to discharge the functions of their office ; 
and they would be but little elevated, in character 
and learning, above the mass of the people. The 
churches must be imperfectly organized ; unaccus- 
tomed to rigid discipline ; exposed to many tempta- 
tions ; easily drawn into sin ; and subject to great 
agitation and excitement. Even a great many 
subjects which may now be considered as settled, 
in morals and religion, would appear to them open 



124 EPISCOFACY EXAMINED. 

for debate ; and parties, as at Corinth, would easily 
be formed. (Comp. Acts xiv. xv ; Rom. xiv ; 
1 Cor. viii.) In these circumstances, how natural 
was it for these churches to look for direction to the 
inspired men, who had founded them? and how 
natural, that such persons should interpose and set- 
tle important and difficult cases of discipline ? And 
after these obvious considerations, are we to sup- 
pose, that the fact, that the apostle Paul, in two 
cases, — and two such cases only are recorded, — 
exercised an extraordinary act of discipline, is to be 
regarded as proof, that this power appertained only 
to the apostolic office, and was to be a permanent 
arrangement in the church ? We confess our 
6 amazement,' that but two cases of apostolic inter- 
ference are mentioned, during the long and active 
life of Paul ; and we regard this as some evidence, 
that the churches were expected to exercise disci- 
pline, and actually did so, on their own members. 

(7.) We are confirmed in our views on this 
point, from w T hat is known to take place in organi- 
zing churches in heathen countries at the present 
day. Since we commenced this article, we were 
conversing with one of the American missionaries, 
stationed at Ceylon.* In the course of the conver- 
sation, he incidentally remarked, that the missiona- 
ries were obliged to retain the exercise of discipline 
in their own hands ; and that, although the mission 
had been established more than fifteen years, yet 
♦ Rev. Mr, Wirjsjow, 



EPISCOPACY EXAMINED. 125 

the exercise of discipline had never been intrusted 
to the native converts. He farther observed, that 
the missionaries had been endeavoring to find per- 
sons, to whom they could intrust the discipline of 
the church, as elders, but that as yet they had not 
found one. The native converts were still ignorant 
of the laws of Christianity ; they had so little influ- 
ence in the church ; they were so partial to each 
other, even when in fault ; that thus far, discipline, 
— though somewhat frequent acts of discipline were 
necessary, — was retained in the hands of the mis- 
sionaries. Substantially the same thing must have 
occurred in the early churches in Asia Minor, in 
Syria, and Greece. Will Dr. Onderdonk infer, 
that because Mr. Winslow, Mr. Poor, and Dr. 
Scudder, in Ceylon, have found it necessary to re- 
tain the power of administering discipline, that there- 
fore they are diocesan bishops, and that they do 
not contemplate, that the churches in Ceylon shall 
be other than prelatical ? If not, his argument in 
the case of the church in Corinth can be allowed no 
weight. 

We have now done with this instance of disci- 
pline. We have shown, that all the circumstances 
of the case can be accounted for, without any such 
conclusion, as that to which the author of the Tract 
is desirous to conduct it. We turn, therefore, to his 
other case of discipline, in the church at Ephesus. 

The case is thus stated in 1 Tim. i. 20 : " Of 
whom is Hymeneus and Alexander ; whom I have 
11* 



126 EPISCOPACY EXAMINED. 

delivered unto Satan, that they may learn not to 
blaspheme." His argument is. that " it is the apos- 
tle who inflicts the discipline ; the elders do not ap- 
pear in the matter. And discipline is a ministerial 
function, and excommunication its highest exer- 
cise." (Answer, p. 13.) In reply to this case, we 
make the following observations. 

(1.) It occurs in a charge to Timothy, — Timo- 
thy, on the supposition of Episcopalians, an apostle 
co-ordinate with Paul himself; Timothy, prelate of 
Ephesus. If Timothy w r as an apostle, and diocesan 
bishop, and if the exercise of discipline pertained to 
an apostle and bishop, why did Paul take the mat- 
ter into his own hands? Why not refer it to Timo- 
thy, and repose sufficient confidence in him to be- 
lieve, that he was competent to fulfill this part of 
his Episcopal office ? Would it now be regarded 
as courteous, for the bishop of Ohio to interpose and 
inflict an act of discipline on some Hymeneus or 
Alexander, of the diocese of Pennsylvania ? And 
would there be as cordial submission of the bishop 
of Pennsylvania, as there was of the bishop of 
Ephesus ? If Timothy was at Ephesus, and if the 
case of discipline occurred at the time which Dr. O. 
supposes, this case appears, to our humble appre- 
hension, very much as if Paul regarded Timothy 
as neither an apostle nor a prelate. 

(2.) If the exercise of the authority in this case 
of discipline by Paul, proves, that the presbyters at 
Ephesus had no right to administer discipline; for 



EPISCOPACY EXAMINED. 127 

the same reason it proves, that Timothy had not that 
right. By the supposition of Episcopalians, Timo- 
thy was there, as well as the presbyters. The as- 
sumption of the authority by Paul, proves as much, 
that it did not belong to Timothy, as that it did not 
belong to the presbyters. 

(3.) This was a case such as occured at Corinth. 
It was not an ordinary act of discipline ; it was one, 
which supposed the infliction of the judgment of 
God by a miraculous agency. " Whom I have de- 
livered unto satan, that they may learn not to blas- 
pheme. " Compare this account with the record of 
the case in Corinth, (1 Cor. v. 5.) and it is evident, 
that this was not an ordinary act of discipline, but 
was such as implied the direct infliction of the 
judgment of the Almighty. That such inflictions 
were intrusted to the hands of the apostles, we admit ; 
and that Paul, not Timothy, inflicted this, proves, 
that the latter was neither an apostle nor a prelate. 

(4.) Dr. Onderdonk supposes, that this occurred 
at Ephesus, and while Timothy was there. But 
•what evidence is there of this ? It is neither affirm- 
ed, that the transaction was at Ephesus, nor that 
Timothy was there. His argument proceeds on 
the assumption, that Timothy was bishop there 
when this epistle was written, and that the case of 
discipline occurred there. And the proof of this 
would probably be, the subscription at the end of 
the second epistle, and the "tradition of the elders." 
But that subscription has no authority ; and it is not 



128 EPISCOPACY EXAMINED. 

to be assigned, but proved, that Timothy was there in 
the capacity of a prelate, or there at all, when this 
epistle was written to him. The demonstration, that 
a bishop only exercised discipline, it must be ad- 
mitted, rests on slender grounds, if this be all. 

(5.) But if this case did occur at Ephesus, what 
evidence is there, that it occurred at the time that 
bishop Onderdonk supposes ? The account in the 
epistle to Timothy, by no means fixes the time of the 
transaction. " Whom I have delivered (irapiSuKa) 
unto Satan," etc. It was already done ; and the 
presumption is, that it was done when Paul was him- 
self present with them. It is morally certain, that it 
was not an act of discipline, that was then to be done. 

Our readers have now the whole case before 
them. Episcopacy affirms, that prelates only have 
the power of administering discipline. It affirms, 
that the churches are prohibited from exercising it 
on their own members ; that those appointed to 
preaeh the gospel, to administer the sacraments, 
and to be pastors of the flock, and who may there- 
fore be supposed to understand the cases of disci- 
pline, and best qualified to administer it, have no 
right to exercise this act of government over their 
own members ; but that this exclusive prerogative 
belongs to a stranger, and a foreigner, a prelatical 
bishop, whom the churches seldom see, and who 
must be, in a great degree, unacquainted with their 
peculiar wants and character. All power of disci- 
pline, in an entire diocese of some hundreds of 



EPISCOPACY EXAMINED. 129 

churches, is to be taken away from the members 
themselves, and from the pastors, and lodged in 
strange hands, and commited to a solitary, indepen- 
dent man, who, from the nature of the circumstances, 
can have little acquaintance with the case, and pos- 
sess few of the qualifications requisite for the intelli 
gent performance of this duty. And does the reader 
ask, What is the authority for this assumption of 
power ? Why are the churches, and their pastors 
disrobed of this office, and reduced to the condition 
of humble dependants, at the feet of the prelate ? 
Let him, in astonishment, learn. It is not because 
there is any command to this effect in the New Tes- 
tament ; it is not because there is any declaration 
implying, that it would be so ; it is not by any affir- 
mation, that it ever was so. This is the reason, and 
this is all : — The apostle Paul, in two cases, and in 
both instances over the heads of presbyters, (and 
over the head of bishop Timothy, too,) delivered men 
'to Satan for the destruction of the flesh, that they 
might learn not to blaspheme ; ' and therefore, 
bishop Onderdonk, and bishop Griswold, and bishop 
Doane, only, have power to administer discipline in 
all the churches in Pennsylvania, and in the eastern 
diocese, and in New- Jersey ; and therefore, all 
the acts of discipline exercised by Presbyterians, 
Methodists, Baptists, etc., in Pennsylvania, and 
New- Jersey, and by the Congregationalists of New- 
England, are null and void. The disposal of such 
antecedents and consequents, may be safely left to all 



130 EPISCOPACY EXAMINED. 

who hold, that "no argument is worth taking into 
the account, that has not a clear and palpable bear- 
ing on the naked topic, — the scriptural evidence of 
Episcopacy." Tract, p. 3. 

But we have not done with this subject. We are 
now prepared to show, not only, that there is no evi- 
dence, that the apostles exclusively exercised disci- 
pline, but that there is positive proof, that all the acts 
of discipline were in fact exercised by the presbyters 
of the churches. To put this matter to rest, we ad- 
duce the following passages of scripture : 

Acts xx. 17, 28. " From Miletus, Paul sent to 
Ephesus, and called for the presbyters of the 
church, and said unto them : Take heed unto your- 
selves, and to all the flock over which the Holy 
Ghost hath made you bishops, (emacSirovs) to feed, 
{jtotixaivuv like good shepherds, to provide for, watch 
over, and govern,) the church of God." It would 
be easy to show, that the word translated feed, in- 
cludes the whole duty which a shepherd exercises 
over his flock, including all that is needful in the 
supervision, government, and defence, of those under 
his care. Proof of this may be found in the follow- 
ing passages of the New Testament, where the word 
occurs in the sense of ruling, or governing, inclu- 
ding of course the exercise of discipline ; for how can 
there be government, unless there is authority for 
punishing offenders ? Matt. ii. 6 ; John, xxi. 16 ; 
1 Pet. v. 2 ; Rev. ii. 27. " And he shall rule 
them (Tfoiyavci uvtovs) with a rod of iron ; " an expres- 



EPISCOPACY EXAMINED. 231 

sion Which will be allowed to imply the exercise of 
discipline. Rev. xii. 5 ; xix. 15. Comp. Ps. ii. 9 ; 
xxiii. 1 ; xxvii. 12 ; xlvii. 13. And the Iliad of 
Homer may be consulted, passim, for this use of the 
word. See particularly, I. 263 ; II. 85. 

1 Pet. v. 2, 3. " The presbyters who are 
among you I exhort, who am also a presbyter. 
Feed (Troifidvare) the flock- of God which is among 
you, taking the oversight (emuKOTrdwres discharging 
the duty of bishops,) thereof, not by constraint, but 
willingly," etc. Here the very work which is 
claimed for prelates, is enjoined on presbyters, the 
very name which prelates assume, is given to pres- 
byters ; and Peter ranks himself as on a level with 
them, in the office of exercising discipline, or in the 
government of the church. It is perfectly obvious, 
that the presbyters at Ephesus, and the presbyters 
whom Peter addressed, were intrusted with the pas- 
toral care to the fullest extent. It is obvious, that 
they were required to engage in all the work requi- 
site in instructing, directing, and governing the flock. 
And it is as obvious, that they were intrusted with 
a power and an authority in this business, with which 
presbyters are not instrusted by the canons of the 
Episcopal church. We respectfully ask, Whether 
the bishop of Pennsylvania, or New-Jersey, would 
now take 1 Pet. v. 2, 3, for a text, and address the 
" priests," or " second order of clergy," in these 
words, without considerable qualification : " The 
presbyters who are among you I exhort, who am 



132 EPISCOPACY EXAMINED. 

also a presbyter. Feed (noindvare) the flock of God, 
emffKoirovvres discharging the duty of bishops over it, 
not by constraint, neither as being lords over God's 
heritage ." 

Heb. xiii. 7. " Remember them which have the 

rule Over you : twv fiyovfxevwv fytiur, YOUR RULERS." 

Verse 17 " Obey them that have the rule over you. 59 
(Ueideade toTs riyovfiivois vpwv.) That bishops are here 
referred to, no one will pretend. Yet the office of 
ruling certainly implies that kind of government 
which is concerned in the administration of disci- 
pline. 

1 Thess. v. 12. "We beseech you, brethren, to 
know them which labor among you, and are over 
you in the Lord, ' (*ai Trpotarafievovs vn&v hv Kvpioi.^j 1 Tim# 

V. 17. " Let the PRESBYTERS that rule Well (irpoeardres) 

be counted worthy of double honor." There can be 
no question, that these passages are applied to pres- 
byters. We come, then, to the conclusion, that the 
terms which properly denote government, and disci- 
pline, and on which alone, any claim for the exercise 
of authority can be founded, — the terms expressive 
of governing, of feeling, of ruling, of taking the over- 
sight, are all applied to presbyters ; that the churches 
are required to submit to them in the exercise of 
that office ; and that the very term denoting Episco- 
pal jurisdiction, is applied to them also. We ask 
for a solitary passage which directs apostles, or pre- 
lates, to administer discipline ; and we leave the case 
of discipline, therefore, to the common sense of those 



EPISCOPACY EXAMINED. 133 

who read the New Testament, and who believe, 
that presbyters had any duties to perform. 

We have now examined the essential point in 
Episcopacy; for, if the claims which are arro- 
gated for bishops are unfounded, the system, as a 
system, is destroyed. We have examined the so- 
litary passage urged directly in its favor, u the 
apostles and elders," " the apostles, and elders, and 
brethren ;" and the claims set up in favor of their . 
exclusive right to administer discipline ; and, if we 
mistake not, we have shown, that hitherto, so 
stupendous claims have never been reared on so 
narrow a basis. 

The next point which it is indispensable for Epis- 
copalians to make out from the Bible, is, that it was 
intended, that the superiority in ministerial rank and 
power, should he a permanent arrangement. This, 
it will be perceived, is a distinct and independent in- 
quiry. It by no means follows of necessity, even if 
all that the Episcopalians claim for the apostles, 
were conceded ; for it might be true, that the apostles 
had this superiority, and yet, that it was designed 
merely as a temporary arrangement. As the 
"Answer " has added nothing material to the argu- 
ment of the tract, on this subject, we shall not long 
be detained on this point. The sole argument in the 
" Tract " is drawn from the claim, that Timothy 
was bishop of Ephesus, and Titus of Crete ; and that 
the " angels " of the seven churches were prelatical 
bishops, (pp. 23 — 29.) In our review, we examined 
12 



134 EPISCOPACY EXAMiKED. 

these several claims at length. (Review, pp. 17— 
31.) As the writer of the Answer has not thought 
proper to notice our argument here, we are left to 
the presumption, that an obvious or satisfactory 
reply was not at hand. The train of our reasoning, 
then, we shall take the liberty of regarding as un- 
broken and untouched. The only appearance of 
argument on this subject, in the Answer, is found 
on p. 14, and it is this : that its author supposes, our 
argument to have been, that Timothy and Titus had 
a temporary and extraordinary office, because they 
were " migratory ;" and, as many of the presbyters, 
— Apollos, for example, — were migratory, hence it 
would follow, that the office of presbyter, also, was 
temporary. Now in reply to this, we observe, that 
although we did affirm the appointment of Timothy 
and Titus to have been ' temporary,' yet we were 
not so weak, as to suppose, that it was because they 
were migratory. That this fact indicated, that they 
had not a permanent prelatical office, we assuredly 
did, and still do, believe. But we showed,— in a 
manner which we marvel the author of the answer 
did not notice, — that Timothy was sent to Ephesus 
for a special purpose, and that he was to execute 
that office only until Paul returned. (Review, pp. 
22,24. 1 Tim. i. 3; iv. 13. 1 Tim. hi. 14, 15.) 
The same thing we showed, from the New Testa- 
ment, to be the case with regard to Titus. (Review, 
p. 26, See Titus i. 6—9; hi. 10, 12.) We never 
so far forgot ourselves, as to suppose, that because 



EPISCOPACY EXAMINED. 135 

Timothy and Titus were "migratory," that, there- 
fore, they were not bishops. We put the matter on 
wholly different ground ; and in the course of our 
argument, we quoted no less than forty-six passages 
of the New Testament, containing, we believe, all 
that can be supposed to bear on the point. We can- 
not withhold the expressions of our * amazement,' 
that an author, whose express object was, to i test 
Episcopacy by scripture,' should have left unnoti- 
ced, this argument. Never was there invented a 
shorter and more convenient mode of avoiding such 
an argument, than by saying of something which 
we never intended to urge, that the whole of it was 
founded on the fact of their being 'migratory.' We 
would now remind the author, that our argument 
was not of such a character ; but it was, (1.) That 
Timothy is not even called an apostle; (2.) That 
he is expressly distinguished from the apostles ; 
(3.) That there is no evidence, that he was bishop of 
Ephesus ; (4.) That the scripture affirms, he was 
sent to Ephesus for a special and temporary purpose ; 
(Review, p. 22.) and, (5.) That the epistles to Ti- 
mothy contain full proof of the falsehood of any 
such supposition, as, that he was a prelatical bishop ; 
because, (a) there are but two orders of officers in 
the church, spoken of m those epistles ; (b) they 
contain no description of his own office as a prelate; 
(c) they contain full and explicit directions, on a 
great variety of other topics, of far less importance 
than the office which, according to Episcopacy s was; 



136 EPISCOPACY EXAMINED. 

to constitute the very peculiarity of the church ; and 
not a word respecting his brother bishops, then exist- 
ing, or any intimation, that such an order of men 
ever would exist. 

In regard to Titus, we proved, (1.) That he 
was left in Crete, for the special purpose of comple- 
ting a work which Paul had begun ; (2.) That Paul 
gave him express directions, when he had done that, 
to come to him ; and, (3.) That he obeyed the com- 
mand, left Crete, and became the travelling com- 
panion of Paul ; and, that there is not the slightest 
reason to suppose, that he ever returned to Crete. 

In regard to the " angels" of the seven churches, 
we showed, that the whole of Dr. Onderdonk's ar- 
gument was a mere assumption, that there was an 
inferior body of the "clergy at large;" that there 
were in each of those cities, more churches than 
one, — a fact which should be proved, not assumed ; 
— also, that the style of the address to the " angel," 
was that of the " angel of the church" evidently re- 
ferring to an individual congregation, and not to 
such a group of churches as constitute a modern 
diocese ; and, that the application of the term "an- 
gel," to the pastor of a single church, was much 
more obvious, and much the more probable suppo- 
sition, than to " the formal, unfrequent, and in many 
instances, stately and pompous visitations of a dio- 
cesan bishop." (Review, pp. 27 — 30.) 

To this argument there is no reply, except by 
an assumption, that Timothy was bishop of Ephep 



EPISCOPACY EXAMINED. 137 

sus ; that the same thing must be presumed to exist 
in the year 96 ; and, that the " elders" at Ephesus 
being there also, and being ministers, any direction 
to the " angel," must suppose, that he was superior 
to the presbyters. (Answer, p. 17.) Now the 
whole of this argument proceeds on the supposition, 
that the elders at Ephesus were ordained ministers 
of the gospel, a distinct rank of the clergy, and sus- 
taining the same office as the " second order" in the 
Episcopal church. But this is assuming the very 
point in debate. In our review, we showed, (p. 
23,) that all the facts in the case of the elders at 
Ephesus, (Acts xx. 17, etc.,) are met by the sup- 
position, that they were ruling elders, or persons 
appointed to govern, guide, and secure, the spiritual 
welfare of the church. Our argument is, (1.) That 
Dr. O. admits, that the word rendered "feed," 
(■KoiyaXveiv) may mean, to rule ; (Tract, pp. 24, 57. 
(2.) That the idea of ruling, is the one which is 
there specifically dwelt on. That he directs them 
to " feed," or exercise the office of a shepherd over 
them, that is, to guard, defend, provide for them, as 
a shepherd does, in the care of his flock. He 
directs them to watch against the grievous wolves 
which should come in, and against those who should 
rise up from among themselves, to secure parties, 
etc. ; (3.) There is no counsel given them about the 
proper mode of administering the sacraments, the 
peculiar duty of the "second order" of clergy. 
(4.) There is no expression of lamentation, that they 
12* 



13S EPISCOPACY EXAMINED. 

had not a prelatical bishop ; or any intimation, that 
they would soon be furnished with one. (5.) It is 
evidently implied, that the number of these elders 
was considerable. They are addressed as such ; 
and yet they are addressed as in charge of one 
"flock, 1 " over which they had been placed. Now 
it is incredible, that any considerable body of the 
" second order of clergy" should have been ordained 
in an infant church like Ephesus. And it is equally 
incredible, that if Paul had so ordained them, he 
should have set them over one flock, in a single 
city, — collegiate ( rectors' in a single church in 
Ephesus, — under a " diocesan" also, of the single 
" flock," or church ; a diocesan not then present, 
and concerning whom not the slightest hint was 
dropped by Paul, either of lamentation or promise* 
So that, on the whole, one knows not at which to be 
most surprised, the number of assumptions indispen- 
sable to the purpose of "enthroning" the bishop 
Timothy at Ephesus, or the singular coolness with 
which Episcopalians urge all these assumptions, as 
if they were grave matters of historical record. 

In reference to the term " angel," as used in the 
apocalypse, we have only to remark, further, that 
the interpretation which makes it refer to a prelati- 
cal bishop, is so unnatural, and forced, that Episco- 
palians, are, many of them, themselves compelled 
to abandon it. Thus Stillingfleet, than whom an 
abler man, and one whose praise is higher in Epis- 
copal churehes, is not to be found among the advo- 



EPISCOPACY EXAMINED, 139 

cates of prelacy, says, of these angels : " If many 
things in the epistles be denoted to the angels, but 
yet so as to concern the whole body, then, of neces- 
sity, the angel must be taken as a representative of 
the whole body ; and then, why may not the word 
angel be taken by way of representation of the 
body itself, either of the whole church, or, which is 
far more probable, of the consessors, or order of 
presbyters, in that church ? We see what misera- 
ble, unaccountable arguments those are, which are 
brought for any kind of government, from metapho- 
rical or ambiguous expressions, or names promis- 
cuously used." Irenicum. 

In regard to -ibis second point, which it is incum- 
'bent on Episcopalians to make out, we are now 
prepared to estimate the force of these arguments. 
The case stands thus. (1.) There is no command 
in the New Testament, to the apostles, to transmit 
the peculiarity of the apostolic office. If there had 
been, the industry of Dr. Onderdonk would have 
called it to our attention. If the peculiarity of the 
office was to be transmitted, it was required, that 
such a command should be given. (2.) There is 
no affirmation, that it would be thus transmitted. 
If there had been, Dr. O.'s tract would not have 
been so barren on this point. And we ask him, 
whether it is credible, that the apostles were bishops 
of a superior order, and that it was designed, that 
all the church should be subject to an order of men, 
"superior in ministerial rank and power," deriving 



140 EPISCOPACY EXAMINED, 

their authority from the apostles ; and yet, not the 
slightest command thus to transmit it, and not the 
slightest hint that it would be done ? We say again, 
Credat Judceus Apella ! (3.) It was impossible, that 
the peculiarity of the apostolic office should be 
transmitted. We have shown, not by assumptions, 
but by a large array of passages of scripture, what 
that peculiarity was, — to bear witness to the great 
events which went to prove, that Jesus was the 
Messiah : we have been met in this proof, by the 
calm and dignified observation, that this was a 
"showy" argument; and we now affirm, that the 
peculiarity of that office, as specified by Jesus 
Christ, by the chosen apostles, by Paul, and by the 
whole college, could not be transmitted ; that no 
bishop is, or can be, a witness, in the sense, and for 
the purpose, for which they were originally desig- 
nated. (4.) We have examined the case of Timo- 
thy, of Titus, and of the angels of the churches, — 
the slender basis on which the fabric of Episcopal 
pretension has been reared. We now affirm, 
(5.) That, should we admit all that Episcopalians 
claim, on each of these points, there is not the slight- 
est proof, as a matter of historical record, that the 
Episcopal office has been transmitted from prelate 
to prelate ; but that the pretended line has been 
often broken, and that no jury would give a verdict 
to the amount of five dollars, on proof so slender as 
can be adduced for the uninterrupted succession of 
prelates. As satisfactory evidence on this point, 



EPISCOPACY EXAMINED. 141 

we repeat the following passage, contained in the 
September number of this journal : 

" We are informed by many ancient historians, 
and very expressly by Bede, in his famous Ecclesi- 
astical History, 'That at the request of Oswald, 
king of Northumberland, certain presbyters came 
(in the seventh century) from Scotland into Eng- 
land, and ordained bishops ; that the abbot, and 
ether presbyters of the island of Hy, sent Aydan for 
this express purpose, declaiming him to be worthy of 
the office of bishop, and that he ought to be sent to 
instruct the unbelieving and the unlearned. 5 He 
informs us, that ' those presbyters ordained him and 
sent him to England on this errand ; and that Fi- 
nan, sent from the same monastery in the same 
island, succeeded him in the Episcopal office, after 
having been ordained by the Scottish presbyters." 

Upon this testimony of Bede, Baxter remarks, 
" You will find, that the English had a succession 
of bishops by the Scottish presbyter's ordination ; 
and there is no mention in Bede, of any dislike or 
scruple of the lawfulness of this course. The 
learned Dr. Doddridge refers us to Bede and Jones, 
Ao substantiate the fact, that ' the ordination of Eng- 
lish bishops cannot be traced up to the church of 
Rome as its original ; that in the year 668, the 
successors of Austin, the monk, (who came over 
A. D. 596,) being almost extinct, by far the greater 
part of the bishops were of Scottish ordination, by 
Aydan and Finan, who came out of the Culdee mo- 



142 EPISCOPACY EXAMINED. 

nastery of Columbanus, and were no more than 
presbyters." 

And is it verily so, that the Episcopal blood was 
thus early and extensively contaminated in Eng- 
land ? Is it verily so, that when the effects of pious 
Austin's labors had become almost imperceptible, 
the sinking church was revived again, by sending- 
to Scotland for presbyters to come and ordain a mul- 
titude of bishops ? Then it is verily a fact, that 
Presbyterian ordination is one of the sturdiest pillars 
that support the vast fabric of the church of Eng- 
land. No matter if only ten bishops were thus 
ordained, the contamination, (if it be one,) having 
been imparted more than eleven hundred years ago, 
has had a long time to diffuse itself and doubtless 
has diffused itself so extensively from bishop to 
bishop, that not a single prelate in Great Britain 
can prove, that he has escaped the infection. For 
what one of them can tell, if he was not consecrated 
by bishops, who were themselves consecrated by 
bishops, and they by other bishops, to whom all the 
ordaining power they ever had, was transmitted 
from the preslyters of Scotland ? But this is not 
the whole of the evil. As no one bishop can trace 
his Episcopal pedigree farther back, perhaps, than 
two or three centuries, so he cannot certainly know, 
that any presbyter, on whose head he has imposed 
hands, has received from him any thing more than 
Presbyterian ordination. Nor is this all the evil. 
The Protestant Episcopal bishops and presbyters ia 



EPISCOPACY EXAMINED. 143 

America are in the same plight ; for I am told that 
all their authority came from England. But as the 
English bishops who gave it to them, could not 
then, and cannot now, certainly tell whence it came, 
so who knows but all the Episcopal clergy in the 
United States of America, are orignally indebted to 
the hands of Elder Aydan and Elder Finan, for all 
their ministerial powers ? I tremble for all Protes- 
tant Episcopal churches on both continents, if Pres- 
byterian ordination be not valid and scriptural." 
pp. 486, 487. 

One point more, in the argument for Episcopa- 
cy, remains. It is, that none but prelates ordained. 
It is incumbent on Episcopalians to prove this, as 
essential to their argument. For if presbyters or 
elders exercised the office of ordaining, then the 
main point claimed for the superiority of bishops, is 
unfounded. We aim, therefore, to show, that there 
is positive proof, that presbyters did ordain. We 
have shown, in the course of our argument, that 
they exercised the office of discipline, one of the 
things claimed peculiarly for bishops ; we now pro- 
ceed to show, that the office of ordaining was one 
which was intrusted to them, and which they exer- 
cised. If this point be made out, it follows still fur- 
ther, that the peculiarity of the office of the apostles 
was not, that they ordained, and that the clergy of 
the New Testament are not divided into ' three or- 
ders,' but are equal in ministerial rank and power. 
The argument is indeed complete without this ; for, 



144 EPISCOPACY EXAMINED. 

unless Episcopalians can show, by positive proof, 
the superiority of their bishops to the right of ordi- 
nation and discipline, the parity of the clergy follows 
as a matter of course. 

The writer of these articles is a Presbyterian. 
But the argument does not require, that he should 
go largely into the proof of his own views on church 
polity. The object is, to disprove Episcopacy. If 
this is disproved, it follows, that the clergy are on an 
equality. If it is shown, that the doctrine of the 
New Testament is, that presbyters were to ordain, 
it is a sufficient disposal of the " feeble claims of lay- 
ordination," and of all other claims. It will follow, 
that a valid ordination is that, which is performed in 
accordance with the direction, that presbyters should 
ordain. What particular churches, besides the 
Presbyterian, accord, in their practice, with the di- 
rection, it is not our business to inquire. It is suffi- 
cient for our purpose, that the Presbyterian and Con- 
gregational churches accord with that requirement, 
and follow the direction of the New Testament, in 
the ordination of their ministry by presbyters, and 
in their ministerial equality. This is all the reply 
that is necessary, to the train of reflections in the 
"Answer." (pp. 5, 6.) We have seen, also, that 
Episcopal ordination is valid, not because it is per- 
formed by a prelate, but because it is, as we remark- 
ed, (Review, pp. 32, 33.) in fact a mere Presby- 
terian performance. 

In proof of the point now before us, therefore, we 



EPISCOPACY EXAMINED. 145 

adduce 1 Tim. iv. 14 : "Neglect not the gift that 
is in thee, which was given thee by prophecy, with 
the laying on of the hands of the presbytery." Of 
this passage, which, to the common sense of man- 
kind, affirms the very thing under discussion, it is 
evidently material for Episcopalians to dispose ; or 
their claims to exclusive rights and privileges are 
forever destroyed. We shall, therefore, examine 
the passage, and then notice the objections to its 
obvious and common sense interpretation, alledged 
by Dr. Onderdonk. 

We observe then, (1.) That the translation of the 
passage is fairly made. Much learned criticism has 
been exhausted, to very little purpose, by Episco- 
palians, to show, that a difference existed between 
" with," O™) in this place, and " by," (Sia) in 2 
Tim. i. 6. It has been said, "that such a distinction 
may justly be regarded as intimating, that the virtue 
of the ordaining act flowed from Paul, while the 
presbytery, or the rest of that body if he were in- 
cluded in it, expressed only consent. (Tract, p. 22.) 
But it has never been shown, nor can it be, that the 
preposition " with " does not fairly express the force 
of the original. The same observation may be ap- 
plied to the word, "presbytery," (jrpe<rPvrepiov.) It de- 
notes properly a body, or assembly of elders, or 
presbyters. In Luke xxii. 66, it is applied to the 
body of elders which composed the Sanhedrim, or 
great council of the Jews, and is translated " the 
elders of the people :" to nptefivripiov rov Xaav. See also, 



146 EPISCOPACY EXAMINED. 

Acts xxii. 5 : "the estate of the elders." The word 
occurs no where else in the New Testament, except 
in the passage under consideration. Dr. Onderdonk 
has endeavored to show, that it means M the office to 
which Timothy was ordained, not the persons who 
ordained him ; so that the passage would read, ( with 
the laying on of hands to confer the presbyterate,'' or 
presbytership, or the clerical office ;" and appeals 
to the authority of Grotius and Calvin, in the case. 
Tract, pp. 19, 20.) In regard to this interpretation, 
we observe, (1.) That if this be correct, then it fol- 
lows, that Timothy was not an apostle, but an elder, 
— he was ordained to the office of the presbyterate, 
or the eldership. Timothy, then, is to be laid out 
of the college of the apostles an 1 reduced to the 
humble office of a presbyter. When prelacy is to 
be established by showing that the office of apostles 
was transmitted, Timothy is an apostle ; when it is 
necessary to make another use of this same man, it 
appears that he was ordained to the presbyterate, and 
Timothy becomes a humble presbyter. But, (2.) If 
the word " presbytery " (rrpea&vripiov) here means the 
presbyterate, and not the persons, then it doubtless 
means the same in the two other places where it 
occurs. In Luke xxii. 66, we shall receive the in- 
formation, that " the presbyterate," " the presbyter- 
ship," or " the clerical office" of the people, that is, 
the body by which the people conferred " the pres- 
byterate," came together with the scribes, etc. In 
Acts xxii. 5, we shall be informed, that " presby- 



EPISCOPACY EXAMINED. 147 

terate," or w the clerical office," would bear witness 
with the high-priest to the life of Paul. Such absur- 
dities show the propriety of adhering, in interpreta- 
tion, to the obvious and usual meaning of the words. 
(3.) The word is fixed in its meaning, in the usage 
of the church. Suicer (Thesaurus,) says, it denotes 
" an assembly, congregation, and college of pres- 
byters in the Christian church." In all the instances 
which he quotes from Theodoret, (on 1 Tim. iv. 14.) 
from Chrisostom, (Homil. xiii. on this epistle,) from 
Theophyiact, (in loco,) and from Ignatius, (Epis. 
to Antioch, and to the Trallians,) there is not the 
slightest evidence, that it is ever used to denote the 
fflce, instead of the persons, of the presbytery. 
(4.) As the opinion of Grotius is referred to by 
•Dr. O., we beg leave to quote, here, a passage 
irom his commentary on this place. " The custom 
was, that the presbyters who were present, placed 
their hands on the head of the candidate, at the same 
lime with the presiding officer of their body," cum 
c&tus sui principe. " Where the apostles, or their 
assistants, were not present, ordination took place 
by the presiding officer (Prceszdem) of their body, 
with the concurrence of the presbytery." We were 
particulary surprised, that the authority of Calvin 
should have been adduced, as sanctioning that inter- 
pretation, which refers the word presbytery to office, 
and not to persons. His words are, " They who in- 
terpret presbytery, here, as a collective noun, deno- 
ting the college of presbyters, are, in my judgment, 



148 EPISCOPACY EXAMINED. 

right." Our first argument, then, is, that the word 
" presbytery," denoting the persons who composed 
the tody, or college of elders, is the proper, obvious, 
and established sense of the passage. 

(2.) It is evident from this passage, that whoever 
or whatever else might have been engaged in this 
transaction, a material part of it belonged to the 
presbytery or eldership concerned. " Neglect not the 
gift that is in thee, which was given thee by prophecy; 

WITH THE LAYING ON OF THE HANDS OF THE PRES- 
BYTERY." Here it is evident, that the presbytery 
bore a material part in the transaction. Paul says, 
that the gift that was in Timothy, was given him by 
prophecy, with the laying on of the hands of the pres- 
bytery. That is, that prophecy, or some prophecies 
relating to Timothy, (comp. 1 Tim. i. 18, "accord- 
ing to the prophecies which went before in thee,") 
had designated him as a proper person for the minis- 
try, or that he would be employed in the ministry; 
but the prophecy did not invest him with the office, 
— did not confer the gift. That was done, — that 
formal appointment fulfilling the prophecy, — by the 
imposition of the hands of the presbytery. It was 
necessary, that that act of the presbytery should thus 
concur with the prophecy, or Timothy had remained 
a layman. The presbyters laid their hands on him ; 
and he thus received his office. As the prophecy made 
no part of his ordination, it follows, that he was 
ordained by the presbytery. 

(3.) The statement here, is just one which would 



EPISCOPACY EXAMINED. 149 

be given now in a Presbyterian ordination ; it is not 
one which would be made in an Episcopal ordination* 
A Presbyterian would choose these very words, to 
to give an account of an ordination in his church ; 
an Episcopalian would not. The former speaks of 
ordination by a presbytery ; the latter, of ordination 
by a bishop. The former can use the account of the 
apostle Paul, here, as applicable to ordination, with- 
out explanations, comments, new versions, and cri- 
ticisms ; the latter cannot. The passage speaks to 
the common understanding of men, in favor of Pres- 
byterian ordination, — of the action of a presbytery in 
the case : it never speaks the language of Episco- 
pacy, even after all the torture to which it may be 
subjected by Episcopal criticism. The passage is 
one, too, which is not like the " apostles and elders," 
" the apostles, and elders, and brethren," — the only 
direct passage on which Episcopacy relies, — a pas- 
sage which has no perceptible connection with the 
case ; but it is one, that speaks on the very subject ; 
which relates to the exact transaction ; and which 
makes a positive affirmation of the very thing in 
debate. 

(4.) The supposition, that this was not a presby- 
terial transaction, renders the passage unmeaning. 
Here was present, a body of men, called a presby- 
tery. We ask the Episcopalian, why they were 
present? The answer is, not for the purpose of 
ordination, but for "concurrence." Paul, the bishop, 
is the sole ordainer. We see Timothy bowing before 
13* 



X50 EPISCOPACY EXAMINED. 

the presbytery. We see them solemnly impose their 
hands on him. We ask, Why is this ? ' Not for the 
purpose of ordination, the Episcopalian replies, but for 
"concurrence." Paul is the ordainer.' But, we ask, 
Had they no share in the ordination ? ' None at all.' 
Had they no participation in conferring the gift de- 
signated by prophecy ? 'None at all.' Why, then, 
present ? Why did they impose hands ? For " con- 
currence," for form, for nothing ! It was an empty 
pageantry, in which they were mistaken, when sup- 
posing, that their act had something to do in confer- 
ring the gift ; for their presence really meant nothing, 
and the whole transaction could as well have been 
performed without, as with them. 

(5.) If this ordination was the joint act of the 
presbytery, we have here a complete scriptural ac- 
count of a Presbyterian ordination. It becomes 
then, a very material question, how the Episcopa- 
lians dispose of this passage of scripture. Their 
difficulties and embarrassments on this subject, 
will still farther confirm the obvious interpretation 
which Presbyterians suggest, and hold. These 
difficulties and embarrassments are thus presented 
by Dr. Onderdonk : 

He first doubts, whether this transaction was an 
ordination. (Tract, pp. 18, 19.) To this we an- 
swer, (1.) That, if it were not, then there is no ac- 
count, that Timothy was ever ordained ; (2.) That 
there is no specific work mentioned in the history 
of the apostles, to which Timothy was designated, 



EPISCOPACY EXAMINED. 151 

unless it was ordination ; (3.) That it is the obvious 
and fair meaning of the passage ; (4.) That, if this 
does not refer to ordination, it would be easy to ap- 
ply the same denial to all the passages which speak 
of the "imposition of hands," and to show that there 
was no such thing as ordination to the ministry, in 
any case ; (5.) That it accords with the common 
usage of the terms, ' imposition of hands,' emOicis rtiv 
X"9W; in the New Testament. The phrase occurs 
but four times : — Acts viii. 18 ; 1 Tim. iv. 14 ; 
2 Tim. i. 6 ; Heb. vi. 2. In all these places, it 
evidently denotes conferring some gift, office, or fa- 
vor, described by the act. In 2 Tim. i. 6, it de- 
notes, by the acknowledgment of all Episcopalians, 
ordination to the ministry. Why should it not 
here ? (6.) If, as Dr. Onderdonk supposes, it refers 
to " an inspired designation of one already in the 
ministry, to a particular field of duty," (Tract, 
p. 19.) then, (a) we ask, why we have no other 
mention of this transaction ? (b) We ask, how it is 
to be accounted for, that Paul, while here evidently 
referring Timothy to the duties and responsibilities 
of the ministerial office in general, should not refer 
to his ordination, but to a designation to a particular 
field of labor? His argument to Timothy, on such 
a supposition, would be this : < Your office of a min- 
ister of the gospel, is one that is exceedingly impor- 
tant. A bishop must be blameless, vigilant, sober, 
of good behavior, given to hospitality, apt to teach, 
not given to wine, etc. (chap, iii.) In order to im- 



152 EPISCOPACY EXAMINED. 

press this more deeply on you, to fix these great 
duties in your mind, I refer you, — not to the solem- 
nity of your ordination vows, — but J solemnly re- 
mind you of " an inspired separation of one already 
in the ministry, to a particular field of duty " We 
need only observe here, that this is not a strain of 
argument that looks like Paul. But, 

Secondly. Dr. O. supposes, that this was not a 
Presbyterian ordination. (Tract, pp. 19 — 21.) His 
first supposition is, that the word " presbytery" does 
not mean the persons, but the office, (p. 19.) 
This we have already noticed. He next supposes, 
(pp. 20, 21.) that if "the presbytery" here means 
not the office given to Timothy, but a body of elders, 
that it cannot be shown, " of whom this ordaining 
presbytery was composed." (p. 21.) And he then 
proceeds to state, that there are " seven modes" in 
which this " presbytery" might be composed. It 
might be made up of " ruling elders ;" or, it might 
be composed of the " grade called presbyters ;" or, 
as Peter and John called themselves " elders," it 
might be made up of "apostles ;" or, "there may 
have been ruling elders and presbyters ; or, presby- 
ters and one or more apostles ; or, ruling elders and 
one or more of the apostles ; or, ruling elders, and 
presbyters, and apostles." (p. 21.) Now, as Dr. 
O. has not informed us which of these modes he 
prefers, we are left merely to conjecture. We may 
remark on these suppositions, (1.) That they are 
mere suppositions. There is not the shadow of 



EPISCOPACY EXAMINED 153 

proof to support them. The word " presbytery," 
" a body of elders," does not appear to be such a 
difficult word of interpretation, as to make it neces- 
sary to envelop it in so much mist, in order to un- 
derstand it. Dr. O.'s argument, here, is such as a 
man always employs, when he is pressed by diffi- 
culties which he cannot meet, and when he throws 
himself, as it were, into a labyrinth, in the hope, 
that amidst its numerous passages, he may escape 
detection, and evade pursuit. (2.) If this " body of 
elders" was made up of " ruling elders," or, "of the 
grade called presbyters," then the argument of 
Episcopacy is overthrown. Here is an instance, 
on either supposition, of Presbyterian ordination, 
which is fatal to the claims, that bishops only or- 
dain. Or, if it be supposed, that this was not an 
ordination, but " an inspired separation of one al- 
ready in the ministry, to a particular field of duty," 
it is an act equally fatal to the claim of prelates to 
the general " superintendence" of the church ; since 
it is manifest, that these " elders" took upon them- 
selves the functions of this office, and designated 
" the bishop of Ephesus" to his field of labor. Such 
a transaction would scarcely meet with Episcopal 
approbation in the nineteenth century. 

But in regard to the other suppositions, that a 
part of all the " presbytery" was composed of apos- 
tles, we remark, (1.) That it is a merely gratuitous 
supposition. There is not an instance in which the 
term "presbytery," or "body of elders," is applied, 



154 EPISCOPACY EXAMINED. 

in the New Testament, to the collective body of the 
apostles. (2.) On the supposition, that the " pres- 
bytery" was composed entirely of apostles, then we 
ask, how it happens, that, in 2 Tim. i. 6, Paul ap- 
propriates to himself a power which belonged to 
every one of them, in as full right as to him ? How 
came they to surrender their power into the hands 
of an individual ? Was it the character of Paul thus 
to assume authority which did not belong to him ? 
We have seen, already, how, on the supposition of 
the Episcopalian, he superseded bishop Timothy, 
in the exercise of discipline, in Corinth, and in his 
own diocese at Ephesus : we have now an instance 
in which he claims all the virtue of the ordaining 
power, where his fellow apostles must have been 
equally concerned. 

But if a part only of this "presbytery" was 
composed of apostles, and the remainder presbyters, 
either ruling elders, or "the second grade," we 
would make the following inquiries: (1.) Was he 
ordained as a prelate 1 So the Episcopalians with 
one voice declare, — prelate of Ephesus. Then it 
follows, that Timothy, a prelate, was set apart to 
his work, by the imposition of the hands of elders. 
What was then his prelatical character? Does the 
water in the cistern rise higher than the fountain ? 
If laymen were concerned, Timothy was a layman 
still. If presbyters, Timothy was a presbyter still. 
And thus all the power of prelates, from him of 
Rome downward, has come through the hands of 



EPISCOPACY EXAMINED. 155 

humble presbyters, — just as we believe, and just as 
history affirms. (2.) Was he ordained as a, presby- 
ter? Then his Episcopal character, so far as it 
depends on his ordination, is swept away ; and thus 
we have not a solitary instance of the consecration 
of a prelate, in all the New Testament. 

Which of these suppositions of Dr. O., he is dis- 
posed to receive as the true one, we are unable to 
say. All of them cannot be true ; and whichever 
he chooses, is, as we have seen, equally fatal to his 
argument, and involves a refutation of the claims 
of prelacy. 

The only other reply, with which Dr. O. meets 
the argument for Presbyterian ordination, from this 
passage, is, by the supposition, that the virtue of the 
ordaining act was derived from the apostle Paul. 
The passage on which he rests the argument, is 
(2 Tim. i. 6.) "that thou stir up the gift of God 
which is in thee, by the putting on of my hands." 
On this passage we observe, (1.) Paul does not deny 
that other hands were also imposed on Timothy ; 
nor that his authority was derived also from others, 
in conjunction with himself. (2.) That by the sup- 
position of Episcopalians, as well as Presbyterians 
other hands were, in fact, imposed on him. (3.) It 
was perfectly natural for Paul, in consequence of 
the relation which Timothy sustained to him, as his 
adopted son; (1 Tim. i. 2.) as being selected by 
him for the ministry ; (Acts xvi. 3.) and as being 
his companion in the ministry, and in travels, to re- 



156 EPISCOPACY EXAMINED. 

mind him, near the close of his own life, (2 Tim. 
iv. 6.) that he had been solemnly set apart to the 
work by himself, — to bring his own agency into 
full view, — in order to stimulate and encourage him. 
That Paul had a part in the act of the ordination, 
we admit ; that others also had a part, — the " pres- 
bytery," — we have proved. (4.) The expression 
which is here used, is just such as an aged Presby- 
terian minister would now use, if directing a fare- 
well letter to a son in the ministry. He would 
remind him, as Paul does in this epistle, (2 Tim. 
iv. 6.) that he was about to leave the ministry, and 
the world ; and, if he wished to impress his mind in 
a peculiarly tender manner, he would remind him, 
also, that he took part in his ordination ; that, under 
his own hands, he had been designated to the work 
of the ministry; and would endeavor to deepen 
his conviction of the importance and magnitude of 
the work, by the reflection, that he had been 
solemnly set apart to it by a father. Yet who would 
infer from this, that the aged Presbyterian would 
wish to be regarded as a prelate ? 

Dr. O. remarks on this case, (Tract, p. 22.) 
that, if Paul was engaged in the transaction, it was 
the work of an apostle, and was u an apostolic ordi- 
nation." We admit, that it was an "apostolic ordi- 
nation ;" but when will Episcopalians learn to sup- 
pose it possible, that an " apostolic ordination" was 
not a prelatical ordination ? Did not Dr. O. see, 
that this was assuming the very point in debate, tliat 



EPISCOPACY EXAMINED. 157 

the "peculiarity of the apostolic office was, the power of 
ordaining ? We reply further, that whoever was 
engaged in it, a '* presbytery" was concerned, and 
it was a Presbyterian ordination. 

We have now considered all the objections, that 
have been made to the obvious interpretation of this 
passage ; and we are prepared to submit it to any 
candid mind, as a full and unqualified statement, of 
an instance of Presbyterian ordination. Whichever 
of the half-dozen suppositions, — assuming a hue, 
chameleon-like, from the the nature of the argument 
to be refuted, — which Episcopalians are compelled 
to apply to the passage, is adopted, we have seen, 
that they involve them in all the difficulties of an 
unnatural interpretation, and conduct us, by a more 
circuitous route, only to the plain and common sense 
exposition of the passage, as decisive in favor of 
Presbyterian ordination. 

Having thus shown, that there was one Presby- 
terian ordination, in the case of Timothy, claimed 
by Episcopalians as a prelate, and this too, in per- 
haps the only instance of ordination to the ministry, 
recorded in the New Testament ; we now proceed 
to adduce the case of a church, that was not organ- 
ized on the principles of Episcopalians, with three 
orders of clergy. We refer to the church at Phi- 
lippi. " Paul and Timothy, servants of Jesus Christ, 
to all the saints in Christ Jesus, who are at Philippi, 
with the bishops and deacons." avv sme><d-ois Kai Sia- 
k6vois. In regard to this church, we make the fol- 
14 



158 EPISCOPACY EXAMINED. 

lowing observations. (1.) It was organized by the 
apostle Paul himself, in connection with Silas, and 
was, therefore, on the truly " primitive and apos- 
tolic" plan. (Acts xvi.) (2.) It was in the centre 
of a large territory, the capital of Macedonia, and 
not likely to be placed in subjection to a diocesan 
of another region. (3.) It was surrounded by other 
churches ; as we have express mention of the church 
at Thessalonica, and the preaching of the gospel at 
Berea. (Acts xvii.) (4.) There is mention made 
of but two orders of men. What the deacons were, 
we know from the appointment in Acts vi. 1 — 6. 
They were designated, not to preach, but to take 
care of the poor members of the church, and to dis- 
tribute the alms of the saints. As we have there, 
in the original appointment of the office, the express 
and extended mention of its functions, we are to 
infer, that the design was the same at Philippi. If 
we admit, however, the supposition of the Episcopa- 
lians, that the deacons were preachers, it will not 
at all affect our argument. The other class, there- 
fore, the " bishops," constitute the preaching order, 
or the clergy, — those to whom were committed the 
preaching of the word, the administration of the 
sacraments, and of the discipline of the church. 
Now, either these bishops were prelates, or they 
were the pastors, the presbyters of the church. If 
Episcopalians choose to say, that they were prelates, 
then it follows, (a) that there was a plurality of such 
prelates in the same diocese, and the same city, and 



EPISCOPACY EXAMINED. 159 

the same church ; which is contrary to the funda- 
mental idea of Episcopacy. It follows, also, (b) 
that there is entirely wanting, in this church, the 
6 second order' of clergy ; that an Episcopal church 
is organized, defective in one of the essential grades, 
with an appointment of a body of prelates, without 
presbyters ; that is, an order of ' superior' men, de- 
signated to exercise jurisdiction over " priests" who 
had no existence. If it be said, that the " presby- 
ters," or " second order," might have been there, 
though Paul did not expressly name them ; then we 
are presented with the remarkable fact, that he spe- 
cifies the deacons, an inferior order, and expresses 
to them his Christian salutations ; that he salutes 
and addresses also the saints, and yet entirely disre- 
gards those who had the special pastoral charge of 
the church. Paul thus becomes a model of disrespect 
and incivility. In the epistles to Timothy, he gives 
him directions about every thing else, but no coun- 
% sel about his brother prelates : in the epistles to the 
churches, he salutes their prelates, and their deacons, 
but becomes utterly regardless of the ' second order 
of clergy,' the immediate pastors of the churches. 

But if our Episcopal brethren prefer to say, that 
the " bishops" here mean not prelates, but presby- 
ters, we, so far, shall agree w T ith them ; and then it 
follows, (a) That here is an undeniable instance of 
a church, or rather a group of churches, large 
enough to satisfy the desire of any diocesan bishop . 
for extended jurisdiction, organized without any pre- 



160 EPISCOPACY EXAMINED. 

late. None is mentioned ; and there are but two 
orders of men, to whom the care of the " saints at 
Philippi" is intrusted, (b) If there was a prelate 
there, then we ask, why Paul did not refer to him, 
with affectionate salutations ? Why does he refer 
to ' the second and the third orders of clergy,' with- 
out the slightest reference to the man who was ' su- 
perior to them in ministerial rank and power ?' Was 
Paul jealous of the prelate ? or have we here an- 
other instance of indecorum and incivility ? (c) If 
they had had a prelate, and the see was now vacant, 
why is there no reference to this fact ? why no con- 
dolence at their loss? why no prayer, that God 
would send them a man to enter into the vacant 
diocese 1 (d) Episcopalians have sometimes felt the 
pressure of these difficulties to be so great, that they 
have supposed the prelate to have been absent, 
when this epistle was addressed to the church at 
Philippi ; and, that this was the reason why he was 
not remembered in the salutation. Of this solution, 
we observe only, that, like some other of their argu- " 
ments, it is mere assumption. And even granting 
this assumption, it is an inquiry of not very easy 
solution, why Paul did not make some reference to 
this fact, and ask their prayers for the absent pre- 
late. One can scarcely help being forcibly remind- 
ed, by the ineffectual efforts of Episcopalians to find 
a prelate at Philippi, of a remarkable transaction 
.mentioned 1 Kings xviii. 27, 28, to which we need 
only refer our readers. It is scarcely necessary to 



EPISCOPACY EXAMINED. \(}\ 

add, that, if a single church is proved to have been 
organized without the " three orders of clergy," the 
parity of the ministry is made out by apostolic 
appointment, and the Episcopal argument is at an 
end. 

We may add, that our view of the organization 
of the church in Philippi, is confirmed by an exami- 
nation of the organization of the church in its imme- 
diate neighborhood, in Thessalonica. In the two 
epistles which Paul directed to that church, there is 
not the slightest reference to any prelatical bishop ; 
there is no mention of ' three orders of clergy;' 
there is no hint, that the church was organized on 
that plan. But one order of ministers is mentioned, 
evidently as entitled to the same respect, and as on 
an entire equality. They were men, clearly of the 
same rank, and engaged in discharging the func- 
tions of the same office. " And we beseech you, 
brethren, to know them which labor among you, 
and are over you in the Lord, and admonish you ; 
and to esteem them very highly in love, for their 
work's sake." 1 Thess. v. 12, 13. Will our Epis- 
copal friends be kind enough to inform us, why 
there is no mention of the prelate, whether present 
or absent ? 

We are here prepared to estimate the force of 
the undeniable fact, that there is no distinction of 
grade or rank, by the names which are given to the 
ministers of the gospel in the New Testament. It 
is admitted by Episcopalians themselves, that the 
14* 



162 EPISCOPACY EXAMINED. 

names bishop, presbyter, etc., in the Bible, do not 
denote those ranks of church-officers to which they 
are now applied, but are given indiscriminately to 
all. On this point, we have the authority of 
Dr. Onderdonk. " The name ' bishop,' " says he, 
" which now designates the highest grade of the 
ministry, is not appropriated to this office in scrip- 
ture. That name is given to the middle order, or 
presbyters ; and all that we read in the new 

TESTAMENT CONCERNING * BISHOPS,' (including, of 

course, the words ' overseers,' and ' oversight,' 
which have the same derivation,) is to be regard- 
ed as pertaining to this middle grade." (Tract, 
p. 12.) "Another irregularity of the same kind, 
occurs in regard to the word ' elder.' It is some- 
times used for a minister, or clergyman of any 
grade, higher, middle, or lower ; but it more strictly 
signifies a presbyter." Tract, p. 14. 

In accordance with this fact, which is as re- 
markable as it is true, we have seen, that Peter 
applies to himself the name presbyter, and puts 
himself on a level with other presbyters. " The 
presbyters which are among you, I exhort, (not, I 
command, or enjoin, as a prelate would do,) who 
am also a presbyter." 1 Pet. v. 1. And in the 
very next verse, he exhorts them, (the elders, or 
presbyters,) to "feed the flock of God, taking the 
oversight, (tmcicovovvTes exercising the office of bish- 
op,) not by constraint," etc. 

Now let these conceded facts be borne in mind. 



EPISCOPACY EXAMINED. J(J3 

The term presbyter is applied to the apostles. " All 
that we read of in the New Testament concerning 
' bishops,' is -applied to the middle grade." The 
apostles address each other, and their brethren, by 
the same terms, — by no words or names, that indi- 
cate rank, or grade, or authority. We maintain, 
that this fact can be accounted for, only on the sup- 
position, that they regarded themselves as ministers, 
as on a level. If they meant to teach, that one 
class was superior in rank and power to others ; 
we maintain, that they would not have used terms 
always confounding such distinctions, and always 
proceeding on the supposition, that they were on an 
equality. It will not be pretended, that they could 
not employ terms, that would have marked the va- 
rious grades. For if the term ' bishop' can now do 
it, it could do it then ; if the term presbyter can now 
be used to denote ' the middle grade,' it could then 
have been so used. We maintain, too, that if such 
had been their intention, they would have thus em- 
ployed those terms. That the sacred writers were 
capable of using language definitely, Dr. Onderdonk 
will not doubt. Why, then, if they were capable, 
did they choose not to do it ? Are Episcopal 
bishops, now, ever as vague and indefinite in their 
use of the terms ' bishop' and i presbyters,' as were 
the apostles ? Why were the latter so undesirous 
of having "the pre-eminence?" (3 John 9.) 

It is remarkable, that the mode of using these 
terms in the New Testament, is precisely in accord- 



154 EPISCOPACY EXAMINED. 

ance with the usage in Presbyterian and Congrega- 
tional churches. They speak, just as the sacred 
writers did, of their ministers, indiscriminately as 
'bishops,' as ' pastors,' as * teachers,' as 'evangel- 
ists.' They regard their ministers as on an equality. 
Did not the sacred writers do the same ? 

It is as remarkable, that the mode of using these 
terms in the Episcopal churches, is not, {ex con- 
cessis,) that which occurs in the Bible. And it is 
as certain, that were they thus to use those terms, 
it would at once confound their orders and ranks, 
and reduce their ministers to equality. Do we ever 
see any approximation in their addresses, and in 
their canons, in this respect, to the language and 
style of the New Testament ? Do we ever hear of 
bishop Tyng, or bishop Hawkes, or bishop Schroe- 
der, or bishop Croswell ? Do we ever hear of 
presbyter Ives, or Doane, or Onderdonk? How 
would language like this, sound in the mouth of a 
prelatical bishop ? Would not all men be amazed, 
as if some new thing had happened under the sun, 
in the Episcopal church 1 And yet, we venture to 
presume, that the terms used in the New Testa- 
ment, to designate any office, may be used still. 
We shall still choose to call things by their true 
names, and to apply to all ranks and orders of men, 
the terms which are applied to them by the spirit of 
inspiration. And as the indiscriminate use of these 
terms is carefully avoided by the customs and can- 
ons of the Episcopal church ; as there seems to 



EPISCOPACY EXAMINED. 165 

have been a presentiment in the formation of those 
canons, that such indiscriminate use would reduce 
the fabric to simple ' parity' of the clergy ; and as 
these terms cannot be so used, without reducing 
these * ranks and orders' to a scriptural equality, 
we come to the conclusion, that the apostles meant 
to teach, that the ministers of the New Testament 
are equal in ministerial rights and powers. 

We have now gone through this entire subject. 
We have examined, we trust, in a candid manner, — 
we are sure with the kindest feelings towards our 
Episcopal brethren, — every argument which they 
have to adduce from the Bible, in favor of the 
claims of their bishops. We have disposed of these 
arguments, step by step. We have done this, re- 
membering, that these are all the arguments which 
Episcopacy has to urge from the Bible. There is 
nothing that remains. The subject is exhausted. 
Episcopacy rests here. And it is incumbent on 
Episcopacy to show, not to affirm, that our interpre- 
tation of those passages is not sustained by sound 
principles of exegesis. 

The burden of proof still lies on them. They 
assumed it, and on them it rests. They affirm, that 
enormous powers are lodged in the hands of the pre- 
late, — every thing pertaining to ordination, to disci- 
pline, to the superintendence of the Christian church. 
They claim powers, tending to degrade every pres- 
byter in the world, to the condition of a dependent 
and inferior office ; stripping him of the right of 



166 EPISCOPACY EXAMINED. 

transmitting his own office, and of administering 
discipline among his own flock. They arrogate 
powers, which go to strip all other presbyters, ex- 
cept Episcopalian, of any right to officiate in the 
church of God ; rendering their ordination invalid, 
their administrations void, and their exercise of the 
functions of their office, a daring and impious inva- 
sion of the rights of the priesthood, and a violation 
of the law of Christ. The foundation for these 
sweeping, and certainly not very modest claims, we 
have examined with all freedom. The argument 
for prelacy, may be summed up in a word. It con- 
sists in the text, — the solitary text, — " the apostles 
and elders," " the apostles, and elders, and breth- 
ren," joined to a circuitous train of reasoning, re- 
mote from common apprehension, and too abstruse 
for the guidance of the mass of men. Step by step, 
we have followed them in their circuits ; argument 
after argument, we have patiently displaced ; and 
at the conclusion, we may ask any person of plain 
common sense, to place his finger on that portion of 
the book of God, which is favorable to prelacy. 

This argument having been met and disproved, 
we have produced an instance of express Presbyte- 
rian ordination, in the case of Timothy. Two 
churches we have found, that were organized with- 
out prelates. We are thus, by another train of ar- 
gument, conducted to the same result, — that prelates 
are unknown in the New Testament. And, to 
make our argument perfectly conclusive, we have 



EPISCOPACY EXAMINED. 167 

shown that the same titles are applied indiscrimi- 
nately to all. 

Our argument may be stated in still fewer 
words. The Episcopal claims are not made out ; 
and, of course, the clergy of the New Testament 
are equal. The Episcopalian has failed to show 
that there were different grades ; and it follows, that 
there must be parity. We have examined the only 
case of ordination specified in the New Testament, 
and the constitution of the churches, and find, that 
it is so ; and we are conducted, inevitably, to the 
conclusion, that prelacy is not in the Bible, 

We now take our leave of the Episcopal con- 
troversy. As Episcopacy has nothing which it can 
add to the scriptural argument, we regard our la- 
bors in this department as at end. The whole 
scriptural argument is exhausted, and here our 
inquiry ends ; and here our interest in this topic 
ceases. We take leave of the subject, with the 
same kind feelings for that church, and the same 
respect for the author of the " Tract," with which 
we began the inquiry. We remember the former 
services which the Episcopal church rendered to 
the cause of truth, and of the world's redemption ; 
we remember the bright and ever-living lights of 
truth, which her clergy, and her illustrious laymen, 
have in other times enkindled in the darkness of 
this world's history, and which continue to pour 
their pure and steady lustre on the literature, the 
laws, and the customs of the Christian world ; and 



Jgg EPISCOPACY EXAMINED. 

we trust the day will never come, when our bosoms, 
or the bosoms of Christians in any denomination, 
will cease to beat with emotions of lofty thanksgiv- 
ing to the God of grace, that he raised up such 
gifted and holy men, to meet the corruptions of the 
papacy, and to breast the wickedness of the world. 
In our view of ecclesiastical polity, we can have 
no unkind feelings towards any branch of the true 
church of God. We strive to cherish feelings of 
affectionate regard for them all, and to render praise 
to the common Father of Christians, for any efforts 
which are made to advance the intelligence, the pu- 
rity, and the salvation of mankind. In our views 
of the nature of mind, and of freedom, we can have 
no unkind feelings towards any denomination of true 
Christians. 6t There are diversities of operations, 
but the same spirit." We have no expectation, that 
all men, in this world, will think alike. And we 
regard it as a wise arrangement, that the church of 
God is thus organized into different sections and de- 
partments, under the banner of the common Captain 
of their salvation. It promotes inquiry. It pre- 
vents complacency in mere forms and ceremonies. 
It produces healthy and vigorous emulation. It 
affords opportunities for all classes of minds to ar- 
range themselves according to their preferences, 
and their habits of thought. And it is not unfavor- 
able to that kindness of feeling which the Christian 
can cherish, and should cherish, when he utters in 
the sanctuary, the article of his faith, " I believe in 



: 



EPISCOPACY EXAMINED. 169 

the holy catholic church, the communion of saints." 
The attachment of a soldier to a particular compa- 
ny or squadron, need not diminish his respect for the 
armies of his country, or extinguish his love of her 
liberty. Being joined to a company of infantry, 
need not make me feel, that the cavalry are useless, 
or involve me in a controversy with the artillery. 

We ask only, that Episcopacy should not as- 
sume arrogant claims ; that she should be willing to 
take her place among other denominations of Chris- 
tians, entitled to like respect as others, to all the 
tender and sympathetic affections of the Christian 
brotherhood ; and willing, that others should walk 
in the liberty wherewith Christ has made his peo- 
ple free? We shall have no contest with our 
Episcopal brethren, for loving the church of their 
choice, and the church in which they seek to pre- 
pare themselves for heaven. We shall not utter 
the language of unkindness, for their reverencing 
the ministerial office, in which the spirits of Cran- 
mer and Leighton were prepared for their eternal 
rest. Content that other denominations should en- 
joy like freedom, when they do not arrogate to 
themselves unholy claims, and attempt to " lord it 
over" other parts "of God's heritage;" we shall 
pray for their success, and rejoice in their advance- 
ment. But the moment they cross this line ; the 
moment they make any advances which resemble 
those of the papacy ; the moment they set up the 
claim of being the only * primitive and apostolical 
church ;'. and the moment they speak of the 6 invalid 
15 



170 EPISCOPACY EXAMINED. 

ministry' and the ' invalid ordinances' of the 
churches, and regard them as ' left to the uncove- 
nanted mercies of God,' that moment, the language 
of argument and of Christian rebuke may properly 
be heard from every other denomination. There 
are minds, that can investigate the Bible, as well as 
the advocates for Episcopacy ; there are pens, that 
can compete with any found in the Episcopal 
church ; and there are men, who will not be slow 
to rebuke the first appearance of arrogance and of 
lordly assumption, and who will remind them, that 
the time has gone by, when an appeal to the infalli- 
ble church will answer in this controversy. Arro- 
gant assumptions, they will be at once reminded, 
do not suit the present state of intelligence in this 
land, nor the genius of our institutions. While the 
Episcopal church shall seek, by kind and gentle 
means, to widen its influence, like the flowing of a 
river, or like the dews of heaven, we shall hail its 
advances ; when she departs from this course, and 
seeks to utter the language of authority and denun- 
ciation, — to prostrate other churches, as with the 
sweepings of the mountain-torrent, — she will be 
checked by all the intelligence and piety of this 
land ; and she will be reminded, by a voice uttered 
from all the institutions of these times, that Episco- 
pacy has had its reign of authority in the dark ages, 
and at the Vatican ; and that the very genius of 
Protestantism is, that one church is not to utter the 
language of arrogance over another; and that not 
authority or denunciation, but scriptual exposition, 



EPISCOPACY EXAMINED. 171 

is to determine which is in accordance with the look 
of God. 

In our review, we expressed at length our feel- 
ings towards the Episcopal church, (pp. 36 — 38.) 
After quoting a, part of our remarks on this subject, 
the author of the Answer makes these candid and 
kind observations : — 

"A truly splendid eulogium on our church, — 
and one which does credit to the candor, the bene- 
volence, the superiority to prejudice, of the elevated 
mind that conceived it, and the honorable frankness 
which gave it public utterance. With the feelings of 
such a heart, as that of the author of these paragraphs, 
we have, vve can have, no controversy whatever, 
— we rather desire to copy them more perfectly 
ourselves, and be taught more of the grand duty of 
love, by an opponent who so nobly and so delight- 
fully exemplifies it." p. 19. 

The author of the " Answer" quoted the whole 
of our remarks, with the exception of the last five 
lines. In those lines, we expressed a hope, that " the 
Episcopal church was destined yet to be, through- 
out, the warm friend of revivals, and would conse- 
crate her wealth and power to the work of making 
a perpetual aggression on the territories of sin and 
of death." (Review, p. 36.) Why this part of our 
remarks was omitted, as not worthy of the comment 
of being a " splendid eulogium on the church," we 
know not. The fact was striking. We were not 
" amazed" by it ; but we were conscious of that 
feeling of pensiveness, which involuntarily steals 



172 EPISCOPACY EXAMINED. 

over the soul, when a Christian, high in office and 
in talent, evinces any degree of coldness towards 
the great work of converting the world. We could 
not but ask ourselves, Is this to be interpreted as 
an indication, that the author of the " Answer" is 
alarmed at the word revivals ? Are we to consider 
it as an indication, that he could not join us in the 
wish, that the wealth and power of the Episcopal 
church should be consecrated to the work of saving 
the world ? Are we to understand, that there is 
such a fear of the word revivals, and such a dread 
of an entire consecration of wealth and power to 
fulfill the special command of Christ, as to induce 
the author of the " Answer" to pause, — inmedia&res* 
— in the very midst of a quotation, rather than re- 
peat or write the word revivals, or speak of such a 
consecration ? It may have been, indeed, wholly an 
inadvertant omission ; and as we prefer such an in- 
terpretation, to one which implies suspicion or im- 
proper motive, we shall close this article, as we did 
the former, with the wish, — a wish which shall never 
depart from our heart, — that, whatever may be the 
strength or the numbers of the Episcopal church, 
when the Son of God shall come, to take to himself 
his great power, she may be found foremost among 
the friends of revivals,— of pure, spiritual piety, 
and engaged with untiring zeal amidst the van of 
the Christian host, in making a perpetual aggression 
on the territories of sin and of death. 



Deacidified using the Bookkeeper process. 
Neutralizing agent: Magnesium Oxide 
Treatment Date: August 2005 

PreservationTechnologies 

A WORLD LEADER IN PAPER PRESERVATION 
m Thomson Pa 
Cranberry Township PA 16066 
(724) 779-21 1 1 






LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 






014 673 555 1 



